Leftist Discussion Thread

[Jabberwocky]

Most of them do have credentials. Tillerson especially.

 

[Droppersneck]

Lol liberals want some professional student policy wonks that follow the theory and not the practical application of the job at hand. Tilllerson is the perfect candidate being in contact with many heads of state. He is rich beyond belief and is taking a pay cut to serve his country. Time to put partisanship aside and give a man the chance to prove himself. He doesn't sound like a chicken or war hawk like grahamnesty or mccain, and I find that refreshing. And with all these dems wanting to go to war with Russia to lay cover for why their weak candidate lost, we need all the level headed statesmen we can muster.

 

[tathra]

Time to put partisanship aside and give a man the chance to prove himself

Yeah, after 8 straight years of nothing but obstructionism and unbelievable levels of tribalism and partisanship and throwing temper tantrums and literally shutting down the entire federal government no less than 3 times because they couldn't get everything 100% exactly as they wanted it, now that their guy is on power NOW is the time to stop it. No, fuck you. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The GOP and trump deserve nothing except exactly what they spent the past 8 years doing. The time to grow up and put partisanship and tribalism aside was 8 fucking years ago, instead we got nothing but "our one and only goal is to make Obama a one-term president" and "we want to make sure Obama fails".

Remember the Christian "golden rule", treat others how you want to be treated? Well they unequivocally showed us over the past 8 years how they want to be treated, and that's exactly how they need to be treated.

 

[socko]

I think Trump's point is that he is not appointing political insiders and career politicians. His appointees are business insiders and part of the business world. They are not necessarily Washington political insiders. If you look at it that way, he is delivering as promised.

who's suggesting that? answer: nobody.

trump campaigned on being a washington outsider who was going to govern for the people and 'drain the swamp'. one of his first acts as president was to appoint a bunch of business insiders to cabinet positions - exactly the types of people he complained about on the campaign.

alasdair

 

[alasdairm]

^ nice goalpost move.

both his transition team and his cabinet look a lot like this swamp he promised to drain. well, half of what he said in his campaign was just lies so i'm not surprised he went back on this promise too...

why have people become so willing to tolerate/condone/support politicians like trump who have such a casual attitude with veracity? seriously - right or left, conservative or liberal, we should all have a problem with this (and not just trump - politicians of all parties who egregiously and openly lie).

alasdair

 

[Shrooms00087]

Yeeeeah but that wasn't a 'goalpost move'. I've never even understood the metaphor but realistically he did put in small time business insiders. But again it's not like they're not going to have teams of advisers that do most of the work for them.

 

[socko]

I'm not sure what goal post you mean. I only read the last few comments int he thread. No politician's lies should be tolerated. I think what people don't realize about Trump is that he used to be a TV game show host. The purpose of a TV game show host is to work the crowd. Their words aren't meant to be taken seriously or literally. His tone and delivery during his campaign made it clear to me.
I'm not following the news closely and haven't kept of with the appointments in detail. Jeff Sessions is a bad idea as far as drug laws go.I'm not sure about the allegations of racism. Appointing his son in law probably qualifies as nepotism under the legal LBJ definition established in the 1960s in response to JFK appointing family members.
There would never have been a Trump if the DNC had not conspired against Sanders. Superdelegates were warned to stop being corrupt. Debbie Waserman Schultz was warned. All of the DNC insiders were warned that this would happen. They're getting what they deserve.

 

[tathra]

I'm not sure what goal post you mean. I only read the last few comments int he thread. No politician's lies should be tolerated. I think what people don't realize about Trump is that he used to be a TV game show host. The purpose of a TV game show host is to work the crowd. Their words aren't meant to be taken seriously or literally. His tone and delivery during his campaign made it clear to me.

So no politician's lies should be tolerated, but you're fine supporting somebody you admit didn't mean anything he said? There's a word for somebody who will say anything in order to manipulate people in order to gain political power, "demagogue". Demagogues are not people you want in power because they're almost guaranteed to be despots, and that is exactly how trump is acting already. Obama issued less executive orders than any other president in modem history, but regressives flipped the fuck and called him a dictator, claiming he was one because he was ruling by EOs; here we are only a few days into trump's rule and he's already gone crazy with EO after EO, acting exactly like a dictator from day one, so where's the outrage? There's been not a single peep, only more "give him a chance!" when anyone that isn't delusional or acting in bad faith can see exactly what's going on.

 

[Droppersneck]

Obama had two years to do all he wanted without any consent of the other side. He never reached across the isle bc he was a shitty statesmen and had no desire to reason with what he considered his enemies. He ruled by executive order which is why he bet heavy on Clinton and campaigned hard bc he knew his legacy was gonna be fucked if she lost. His only accomplishments were being black and Obamacare.

I think Trump's point is that he is not appointing political insiders and career politicians. His appointees are business insiders and part of the business world. They are not necessarily Washington political insiders. If you look at it that way, he is delivering as promised.

Ah good ole socko, always good for cutting through the shit and getting to the point. A true liberal and not one of these neo con progressive partisans.

 

[quiet roar]

There would never have been a Trump if the DNC had not conspired against Sanders. Superdelegates were warned to stop being corrupt. Debbie Waserman Schultz was warned. All of the DNC insiders were warned that this would happen. They're getting what they deserve.

This! Especially the last sentence.

 

[consumer]

Yes if it had been a Bernie vs Trump the situation might have worked out different. I have to say the democrats deserved to lose after the way they conducted the nomination process. Super delegates need to be removed from the process and put ordinary peoples wishs first. Super delegates are an afront to democracy

 

[spacejunk]

Why are talking about bloody trump in this thread?
This election was not so much won by Trump as it was lost by the democrats - but still, can we possibly steer it back someway towards the topic of discussion?
I suppose it is interesting to watch the logical contortions of trump apologists - but how we got from Deleuze and Guattari to trump i don't know

Of course it is the major topic of political discussion all around the world at the moment - but surely there are enough discussions about the US president in ce&p already?

Anyway, for those who are interested in talking about something a little deeper than all this fox news scented hot air, i'd really like to come back to this article, and hear people's thoughts on it;

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.451.9268&rep=rep1&type=pdf
the piece above is an ethico-aesthetics of drug use curious to see what drug users think of it

According to one of my professors at university, one of the authors of the article linked above, Gilles Deleuze was watching CNN when he decided that the world was beyond repair and redemption - so he jumped out the window of his apartment and fell to his death. This was in 1995.
I can't find a source to varify this, so i take it with a grain of salt (like a lot of things) - but i can't help but think about how this preeminent French poststructuralist philosopher would have responded to the current state of global politics, and the intellectual vacuum of "leaders" like trump.
It seems to me that his supporters are not just content to swallow his lies and manipulation, but that they also compelled to push this "post truth" "reality" and project it onto the rest of us.
The whole concept of "fake news" is an obvious attack on free press, something that is struggling as it is.

Buying into trump's twisted version of "fake news" completely works against the interests of the people, and democracy. Freedom of the press is an essential part of any modern democracy - and trump's take on the matter completely throws the baby out with the proverbial bathwater.
Everybody knows that the media has a vested interest, but if you think that trump has your best interests at heart, you've been had.
Having said that, i think basically all of Trump's supporters have been conned.
He used "identity politics" (and the hostile backlash to various liberal efforts to recognise the rights of "minorities") to win the presidency, with a little help from the shambolic efforts of the democratic party to prevent Sanders from winning them democratic nomination.

many seem to be under the impression that this is the beginning of a new era of grubby far-right jim-crow-esque politics in the USA - but i think it is far more likely to herald a strong revival of the American left.
with the attacks on abortion rights and environmental regulation, trump's administration will remind a lot of americans (and others around the world) why those things were worth fighting for in the first place.

this is not a resurgence of the right, so much as it is the death-throes of baby boomer conservatism.

how many of trump's supporters will still be alive to vote in 10 years - or 20?
considerably fewer than now, i suspect; and they are already a minority. As people who grew up before the 1960s and 70s decreases, so will his support base, i suspect.

Every extremist position trump pushes will serve to galvanise his opponents (such as Sanders' supporters, and those americans who believe that church and state should be kept seperate) - and i think that in the long-term, he will damage the republican party more than help them.
i'd like to think that people who voted for trump in the belief that he was "anti-establishment" will soon realise that they were taken for a ride, but i'm not holding my breath.

Manipulators of trump's calibre know how to say exactly what people want to hear - something that is an absolute breeze for someone who's supporters do not hold them to account to be honest or have any integrity whatsoever.
While trump is working very hard to have nothing but a complicit, unquestioning press and his beck and call, i suspect the the online world will pick up the slack of the traditional media. It will have to, if american democracy is going to survive.

Viva la resistance!

 

[consumer]

Bro. You know i love you but you said why are we talking about Trump in this thread, then proceeded to talk about Trump . Just getting in before Droppers

 

[spacejunk]

Yeah, i'm aware of the irony.
I'm just trying to encourage some intelligent discussion here, the trump trolls are tiresome.

 

[consumer]

I know. Just beating Droppers to the point

 

[hotgirls.jpg.exe]

this is not a resurgence of the right, so much as it is the death-throes of baby boomer conservatism.

God I hope you're right, their influence on the world and its workings have been utterly toxic in the truest sense of the word, though I do fear what kind of lunatic policies may be enacted as a result of their death-throe tantrums.

how many of trump's supporters will still be alive to vote in 10 years - or 20?
considerably fewer than now, i suspect; and they are already a minority. As people who grew up before the 1960s and 70s decreases, so will his support base, i suspect.

It is said paradigm shifts do not occur when adherents to the old change their mind, but when they all die out

i'd like to think that people who voted for trump in the belief that he was "anti-establishment" will soon realise that they were taken for a ride, but i'm not holding my breath.

Given we're already seeing some pretty spectacular mental gymnastics from his supporters about how he didn't really lie or even worse, that it doesn't matter that he did because of whatever bullshit insane post-hoc justification they can come up with, I'm not gonna hold my breath either

While trump is working very hard to have nothing but a complicit, unquestioning press and his beck and call, i suspect the the online world will pick up the slack of the traditional media. It will have to, if american democracy is going to survive.

This, I think, is a really key difference between now and times past. You can't stop the information from getting out there, they will never be in complete control of the narrative. Hence all the 'fake news' malarkey - which incidentally is a very well known tactic of cults. Tell the followers anything negative they hear is malicious lies to try and throw them off the true path, and it's a sin to even read about it. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

I read this article recently called 'The End of the Anglo-American Order', about this current trend in politics (Trump/Brexit), where it's come from and what it could mean. It's super long but highly recommended reading. Viva la resistance indeed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/magazine/the-end-of-the-anglo-american-order.html

 

[socko]

It's a matter of knowing how big a grain of salt to take what they say. Obama was generally sincere and I think spoke very literally, but he just wasn't a strong enough politician to carry out his promises. Sanders was sincere but talked in terms of dreams. He promised some ridiculous things like free tuition which everybody knows was unrealistic, and he only said it as code for saying tuition needs to be brought under control. I don't think that made him a liar.

Then there is Trump. He talked a lot, but a lot of the time he seemed merely to want to sabotage himself. When he was serious, his promises came across more as a brain storming session where somebody says anything, no matter how crazy. It was like he was saying "wouldn't it be great if we brought back some jobs or brought immigration under control." So he said "build a wall" and "lock her up." Did you take him literally? I saw it as hyperbole. I don't think he truly wanted to win, and his heart was never in it. Still, I believe he will try to address jobs and trade issues, but he will not try to build a wall or lock her up. I have no idea how he will try to do it, and I don't know if it is even possible. I don't know if he will end up being a dictator or a disaster, but I doubt he'll be nearly as bad as people fear.

Finally, there were HRC's campaign promises. Of the four, she comes across as the biggest fraud. For decades, she was a strong supporter of TPP, NAFTA, China as America's most favored trading partner due to donations to the Clinton's presidency, and other trade pacts. Then when Sanders became popular on a platform of doing away with those harmful trade pacts, she flipflopped and claimed she was now agaisnt them. She is notorious for 'changing her mind,' a politician's code for lying. I have no doubt that had she been elected, she would have said she "changed her mind based on reexamining the data" or something to that effect. She would have outsourced and offshored the few good jobs that remain in the US in exchange with the countries that made donations to the Clinton Foundation.

So no politician's lies should be tolerated, but you're fine supporting somebody you admit didn't mean anything he said? There's a word for somebody who will say anything in order to manipulate people in order to gain political power, "demagogue". Demagogues are not people you want in power because they're almost guaranteed to be despots, and that is exactly how trump is acting already. Obama issued less executive orders than any other president in modem history, but regressives flipped the fuck and called him a dictator, claiming he was one because he was ruling by EOs; here we are only a few days into trump's rule and he's already gone crazy with EO after EO, acting exactly like a dictator from day one, so where's the outrage? There's been not a single peep, only more "give him a chance!" when anyone that isn't delusional or acting in bad faith can see exactly what's going on.

Dropper, as you must know, the DNC is now further to the right than Richard Nixon, and Hilary, in her youth was a Goldwater Republican. Despite how much they fight agaist each other, I see the GOP and DNC as two faces of the same party. The only difference is that the DNC is the hip, urban face while the GOP is the rural face.
Trump's nomination shook up the GOP, and I hope his victory will shake up the DNC. Both parties are out of touch with the challenges the US faces.

 

[Droppersneck]

I concur for the most part socko. My hope is that with trump is that he comes through on curbing illegal imigration and makes some positive market reforms in terms of healthcare. Also appoints a constitutionalist SCOTUS judge. Other than that I'm just glad we didn't get the "satanic bitch", as my dad refers to her, or nutty old Berny. Bernie came across so well to low info voters bc he was never shown opposition or asked non softball questions. That small business owner asked him some moderately difficult questions about excessive regulation, and he flailed/ got irrationally angry at his last town hall. The guy has never been successful at anything In his life other than becoming a politician. And that doesn't do much for me personally. He Couch surfed much of his life, and never worked in the private sector. And this idiot is gonna tell us how to run the country. Lol gtfo the guy could barely sew on the the elbow patches to his corderoy jacket much less manage a budget!

 

[spacejunk]

It's a matter of knowing how big a grain of salt to take what they say. Obama was generally sincere and I think spoke very literally, but he just wasn't a strong enough politician to carry out his promises. Sanders was sincere but talked in terms of dreams. He promised some ridiculous things like free tuition which everybody knows was unrealistic, and he only said it as code for saying tuition needs to be brought under control. I don't think that made him a liar.

I don't think "free tuition" is unrealistic for the USA economically. Sadly, though you're probably right that culturally, massive government investment in education would meet a great deal of political resistance.

Having said that, the 2016 election seemed to be the best opportunity american presidential candidates have ever had to make 'radical' proposals, such as government subsidised education or universal healthcare.

I might be completely wrong, but i get the impression that some americans just wanted things to change, and that the democrats' massive failure was running with a candidate that seemed to be percieved as either "business as usual" or "crooked" - neither of which were appealing to a lot of folks.

But Sanders was a threat to the democrats' conservatism and crony capitalist influences, so Clinton defeated him politically.

He put some good ideas into the US political arena, though, and I hope that people are able to maintain some focus on what is important rather than getting sucked into the politics of division that are being thrown around as a distraction by the media outrage machine.

 

[alasdairm]

...but he just wasn't a strong enough politician to carry out his promises.

right - the obstructionist house had nothing to do with it

...I hope his victory will shake up the DNC. Both parties are out of touch with the challenges the US faces

something on which we can agree.

alasdair