Progressives (Liberals)

@coldjoint,

coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
These people MUST be removed from power.

Are you speaking about Trudeau's political allies? I agree. Trudeau is your PM, if you didn't know.

Don't you know that blatham is an International Leftist with a bottomless well of concern for all the world's poor and oppressed? The war against the evils of capitalism and movement conservatism isn't limited by national borders, and the most important front in this fight is right here in America and so all of Bernie's time and talents are focused on Battleground USA.

I think I read in one of these threads that once the Communists threw in with Republicans to form the Second Spanish Republic his grandfather, a Canadian Robert Jordan, traveled to Spain to join the International Brigades set up by the Communist International to help their Spanish comrades in the civil war with Franco's Falangist forces.

I also seem to recall that his father, or maybe an uncle, fought in the Cuban Revolution joining the guerilla force of Segundo Frente Nacional de Escambray; led by American William Alexander Morgan. Fortunately, he escaped the fate that befell Morgan at the hands of the Castro regime.

For personal reasons, blatham himself didn't take up arms in any of the many struggles against Imperialism during his earlier days (e.g. Vietnam, Angola, Nicaragua etc), but he has, nevertheless, been a fearless and indefatigable fighter for the Cause throughout his life. Imagine, if you can, where the United States might be right now if not for the decades of Bernie's ferocious fusillades of enlightened propaganda influencing, literally, several minds via the internet.

[This post, of course, is satirical in nature and not intended to be a true representation of the actual lives of blatham's family members, of whom the author has no knowledge whatsoever. The author has no desire to misinform those who are incapable of recognizing outlandish satire, nor those who are quite happy to generate a phony big ******* deal about him attempting to do so. With the exception of the fictional character, Robert Jordan, references to individuals and organizations other than Latham family members are factual and if you don't believe the author, google them]

0 Replies

@blatham,

I'm always bemused by these reference to big money Republican donors. There are just as many such individuals who give big money to democrats from Soros to Steyer to innumerable Hollywood and Silicon Valley folks etc. In addition the Dems can rely on huge contributions from labor unions which are expert at masking them as "public education" campaigns.

Unlike Blatham I don't claim to know their inner motivations or just what standards of morality they adhere to - I've always considered such things as beyond the reach of an outsider without extensive contact and knowledge of each party involved. Evidently Blatham has solved that difficulty and can read men's souls from afar.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

I give them equal hell.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Pharmaceutical companies and big oil are poison for Democrats. They need to get their money elsewhere. I’m surprised Gillibrand is being so spastic in this regard. Most people try to hide association with Big Pharma via ‘bundling’. This will hound Gillibrand through the campaign.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I'm always bemused by these reference to big money Republican donors.

That's possibly because I put some study into this stuff and there's no evidence that you do. Have you read Dark Money yet, george? I guess that's a rhetorical qustion. Of course you haven't.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

I give them equal hell.

That's just kind of lazy, edgar. We all know that big money flows into both parties. It's prudent for banks and large corporate entities to do so, of course. They wish to steer policy and laws in directions that will increase their profits and their political power. And we know that this is a massively corrupting influence on US governance resulting in consequences such as we see now with a return to wealth disparities not seen since the "guilded age".

But to extrapolate from that to "both sides equal" is lazy.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

The ends justify the means, eh blatham?

Like "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice"?

Of course, sometimes the end does justify the means. Normally you'd have no justification for slamming the back of someone's head with a baseball bat, perhaps fatally, but if you are in a mall and some douchebag is firing a weapon....

0 Replies

This is just too ******* priceless. Sean Hannity on today's upcoming testimony from Michael Cohen...

Quote:

Let's preview what is about to go down tomorrow in our nation's swamp.

Cohen was Trump's personal lawyer doing likely criminal and certainly corrupt things for Trump.
Cohen was Hannity's personal lawyer.

But "the swamp" isn't Trump or Hannity or even Cohen. It is the FBI, Mueller and Dems.

This really does bring into focus the use of "swamp" we've seen from the right. Though Trump promised in his campaign that he'd have no truck with lobbyists and "consultants"

Quote:

“I’m going to … expand the definition of lobbyists,” Trump said on Oct. 18, 2016. “So that we close all the loopholes that former government officials use by labeling themselves as consultants and advisers when we all know that really what they are is lobbyists.”

WP

Of course, he did something like the exact opposite, placing ex-lobbyists (and others with serious conflicts of interest that can and have feathered their own nests - Trump and family being the most obvious case in point) throughout the senior ranks of his government. So, what does "swamp" mean in rightwing land?

"Things we don't like" is the actual working definition. The mainstream media = swamp (not right wing media, of course). The government agencies investigating Trump = swamp (Kenneth Starr, a brave man standing for justice in the face of constant personal attacks). Etc

The abuse of language here has two goals. One, to denigrate (in the most unreasonable and deceitful ways) anything that the modern right deems an impediment or danger to their political power. Second, and this is probably more important, the forwarding of the on-going narrative that "government is bad". As Bill Kristol laid out explicitly in his memo to Republicans on how to attack Hillarycare, if the bill was passed then citizens would become re-aquainted with the great good that government can do for those citizens and as a consequence, Republican electoral future would be badly damaged perhaps for a very long while.

0 Replies

In the mode of the GOP-run Clintons4McCain dirty tricks scam...

Quote:

Jacob Wohl, the man who used his mom’s cell phone and fake Twitter accounts to try to take down Robert Mueller and is widely regarded as a right wing troll, was finally suspended from Twitter on Tuesday after waging a war of bizarre chaos on the platform. According to NBC News, Wohl was suspended from the platform for operating three fake accounts that were banned from Twitter.

One of those accounts was a fan account for possible presidential candidate and former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. Wohl admitted to reporters that he ran the now-banned account, @women_4_schultz, after an NBC News reporter reminded him about it.

NYMag

And this, like the Clintons4McCain example, points up the very real and significant danger of citizens being purposefully deceived because many will simply accept what they see on social media without checking veracity of authorship. That's bad enough with something like vaccines. Far, far worse with subjects like global warming and their own government.

The example, though, is just one guy (apparently) doing the dirty tricks troll thing. The Clintons4McCain instance was the first social media propaganda project I'd seen. Though the GOP set it up, it really wasn't terribly sophisticated.

Now, imagine how sophisticated and influential such projects might be if put in the hands of Russian intelligence agencies or some very talented and experienced marketing agencies like Hill and Knowlton read this for a fine example

0 Replies

@blatham,

You can only serve one master. If you are on the take for bribe money, it doesn't matter which party you claim. Or didn't you notice that our social programs and infrastructure are vanishing before our eyes and our politicians go in to serve and come out totally rich?

1 Reply

I'm going to add something to that last post.

A historically understandable mistrust of experts and "elites" has long been a feature of American progressives. It is understandable in that the degree of complexity of governance necessary to manage a nation with large social programs and regulatory regimes has the consequence of creating distance between the farmer in Montana or the factory worker in New York and their government. This distancing is an inevitable feature of all government systems but the modern nation state particularly.

But though we can understand why and how this all fits together, we have to recognize that expertise - real expertise - is absolutely necessary. We know about global warming because of experts. We have bridges that don't collapse because of experts. When we go for surgery, it is experts that do it (unless you're short of cash and have to remove the wife's tumor with products from DeWalt).

Likewise, "elites" are inevitable. If you want medicine done right, you need a senior body or bodies that determine training and ethical standards. In government as well, elites are going to arise as soon as you have elected representatives (or a dictator). Bernie Sanders is going to have an elite around him as he strategizes his campaign.

The problem isn't experts or elites. The problems happen when truly bad people move into power.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

You can only serve one master.

Not a very useful cliche. You do things for your wife, you do things for your kids, you do things for your country, for your friends etc. Are you going to say that John McCain was totally corrupt? Is Sanders now under the control of the Communication Workers of America or the University of California?

Quote:

Or didn't you notice that our social programs and infrastructure are vanishing before our eyes and our politicians go in to serve and come out totally rich?

For **** sake, man. One might get the idea you've never read anything I've written in the last two decades.

1 Reply

It isn't going to matter if the candidates are trying to out-progressive each other or not on campaign contributions when the DNC establishment holds the authority on who will be nominated.....and it's not going to be Bernie or anyone as progressive as he is if the following scenario is correct.

There's a school of thought that Bernie will need Tulsi's delegates to be the nominee, she is definitely all in for him as she proved last election. The problem for both of them is the DNC rules state that the potential nominee will have to be in lockstep with the DNC establishment neoliberals which are not considered the progressive branch. This is viewed as corruption in the DNC, at least by Bernie-bros, in that he and Tulsi may not be considered a Democrat by the DNC.

Superdelegates fully in play the second round if in the first round of voting someone doesn't have over 50% of the votes. Even if Bernie wins in a landslide, or any other deemed too progressive, he could still be booted by Perez who is going to decide who is a Democrat and who isn't. Superdelegates only limited in first round per deal made last summer in an effort not have a 2016 repeat.

This could potentially severely narrow the selection. Too bad for voters who want to vote for the progressive of their choice.

2 Replies

@blatham,

Quote:

A historically understandable mistrust of experts and "elites" has long been a feature of American progressives.

It is exactly the opposite.

0 Replies

@Brand X,

You’re worrying about something that has never happened before and that there is about a 0.00000001% chance of happening in 2020.

It’s about 1000x more likely that Bernie dies in a lightning strike before 2020.

Division for no purpose but division

1 Reply

@maporsche,

I'm not worrying, I'm just putting it out there.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Quote:
I'm always bemused by these reference to big money Republican donors.
That's possibly because I put some study into this stuff and there's no evidence that you do. Have you read Dark Money yet, george? I guess that's a rhetorical qustion. Of course you haven't.

I could give you a very long list of things I've read, studied, skills I've mastered, and things I've achieved in a fairly wide variety of fields, that I suspect are far outside your experience. or, in some cases, even awareness. I'll confess I'm not an avid consumer of one sided political polemics and conspiracy theories, preferring history and science for such reading.

In this case I provided three concrete counter examples; George Soros, Tom, Tom Steyer and Labor Unions, and added general references to the entertainment & IT industries as major donors. You ignored these salient facts and instead hid behind some political tome you have read, presumably on the assumption that this alone gives one the ability to make an informed opinion about the matter. This taste of yours for political propaganda is the antithesis of scholarship, though you repeatedly masq1uerade as a master logician and scholar. You are neither.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

things I've achieved in a fairly wide variety of fields, that I suspect are far outside your experience. or, in some cases, even awareness.

I have no doubt that's true. But it hardly follows that you are therefore as educated as I or others in all subjects or issues.

Quote:

I'll confess I'm not an avid consumer of one sided political polemics and conspiracy theories

Well, "avid" would be questionable but otherwise, come on, george. Let's point to this...

Quote:

George Soros

So, what do you actually know about his funding? And from where did you get the data?

Quote:

you repeatedly masq1uerade as a master logician and scholar. You are neither.

Your mother wears navy boots.

ps... re logic, you recently excused your use of tu quoque (appeals to hypocrisy) fallacy saying you hadn't formed a syllogism. There is no such relationship as you seem to believe. A truth claim or agument can be fallacious however it is presented or structured. Eg "He can't be right. He's a red-headed Scottish homosexual". Or, if we want to get current, "Trump is innocent because Cohen has been found guilty of false testimony"

1 Reply

Not sure who else is watching the Cohen hearing but it's a classic. Chris Christie just said, "There hasn't been one Republican yet who's tried to defend the president on substance." Every presentation from Republicans has been a tirade aimed at discounting anything and everything Cohen might say.

1 Reply

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Not sure who else is watching the Cohen hearing

Not I.

I'm going to go watch an action movie with lots of fighting and shooting.

0 Replies

Progressives (Liberals)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know