• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

2017 Trump Presidency Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Don't know what a "neo" liberal is. I'm just liberal--like the original freedom fighters.

I read like two Clancy books when I was in Junior High, so I knew fighter jet names and wouldn't get beat up when I didn't know which sport had the more acuate spheroid.

One of those was his big war book that you might be thinking, USSR v NATO, with tanks across Eastern Europe and everything! It never made it to a movie, still can't remember the name. Not as popular I think, probably because of the stupidest ending in all of airport paperbacks.

No, I want you to read all 700+ pages to see, suffer like I did. I can't remember how he had his start, but considering there was still a DPR Germany, we're probably safe. ALthough with Trump, you never know. THe wall he builds might not be on the Mexican border.

OT with Steven King:
Yeah, I had the first edition Dark Tower paperback (with the glossy art), got all excited with the next like two. Then another like twenty+ years go by and he shits out the whole rest of the series over a long weekend. Goes all meta on himself, should have had the car hit him a second time, in his weird author sideways-back-flashes whatever.
 
Eg: if you think that "Assad must go" for "humanitarian" reasons then you are a Neoliberal.

Basically it's the exact same as a Neoconservative, you just champion the Democrats
 
Ahh, do you mean that like a euphemism? Like second-amendment solutions?

Or like how I think free trade is necessary to prevent future wars? Yeah, I'm not big on the marxism stuff. It doesn't have much relevance in a FIRE or service economy.

EDIT: Wait, I didn't see liquid.

Back in the early W days, I thought "neo-con" was the label on the "liberals" like Wolfowitz who supported invasion? That, was considered to be because the only reason for invasion had to be about oil (which you could call "classic market solutions).

I don't see how it relates to Assad. Unless because keeping Iraq from burning further is related to economics.
 
Last edited:
Modern day Liberals have turned into interventionists. They support the same invasion policies as the Neocons but instead of blatantly taking oil they claim to do it under the guise of humanitarian interventions. Basically falling for more of the same intelligence agency lies.
 
Hmm. You never got back about how McCain is at-this-moment slaughtering babies, did you.

Your worldview is not self-consistent. Again.

Which is it, the liberals or the neoliberals/neocons, and are they doing it because they want the oil?

Because the "CIA Lies" in your own world (and Powell's lies before the UN in reality) were that Iraq had such nasty weapons it had to be done for humanitarian reasons.

Or is your logic still "libruls are bad/stupid" and "Trump is good, doesn't like CIA and esp. the FBI" therefore "libruls must like the CIA, which lies"?
 
LiquidMethod said:
*fixed


Also I don't really watch Sean Hannity. I just look at the situation objectively without the need to bullshit or subvert democracy. Since you cannot refute the points with facts you resort to ad homs which means you have no argument.
Click to expand...

Politics brings out the worst in people.
 
Has anybody figured out what makes the best come out? Or marginally positive, for at least someone nearby?
 
Last edited:
Scrofula said:
Hmm. You never got back about how McCain is at-this-moment slaughtering babies, did you.
Your worldview is not self-consistent. Again.
Which is it, the liberals or the neoliberals/neocons, and are they doing it because they want the oil?
Because the "CIA Lies" in your own world (and Powell's lies before the UN in reality) were that Iraq had such nasty weapons it had to be done for humanitarian reasons.
Or is your logic still "libruls are bad/stupid" and "Trump is good, doesn't like CIA and esp. the FBI" therefore "libruls must like the CIA, which lies"?
Click to expand...

The point that I've tried to make a few times is that the differences between the 2-party system are mostly illusory. Today's "Liberals" for all intents and purposes are the same as the Dubya Bush-era Neocons (foreign policy-wise), which is why I (and many other liberals) have progressively shifted to the Right. We follow sanity and actively reject interests that co-opt our efforts for peace. The Neoliberal establishment tricks their constituents into thinking that they're going to "save" countries by invading them and deposing their leaders, while in reality they're doing it to rape their resources and line the same pockets that Cheney & Co were working for. McCain was the embodiment of this agenda. He was at the forefront of funding terrorist mercenaries in the Middle East and he was obsessively campaigning for a war with Russia. Try to look past the labels and witness the true agenda of this political cabal - which is to confuse us all and continue their murderous status quo. IMO this is why they're obsessed with removing Trump. While he is obviously far from perfect, if he can prevent some proposed wars simply from redirecting the funding for business reasons, then that is a win for humanity. He has far more to gain by improving domestic issues as opposed to having financial stakes in the war machine like defense contractors.

Removing Assad was about a gas pipeline supplying Western Europe. If Assad goes the Western interests profit, if he stays then most like Russia profits. Cue false-flag attacks and dubious claims of Assad gassing his own people. Cue media blasting pictures of Syrian children on TV. Cue chants of war from bleeding-heart Liberals. Do a bit of research into the White Helmets and the propaganda surrounding them.

Also relevant: Operation Mockingbird

zephyr said:
Politics brings out the worst in people.
Click to expand...

I like to think one day it will bring people together. If there wasn't so much deception and misinformation out there then good people would band together. Divide and conquer is happening literally right in front of our eyes. I'm sure all of us debating here basically want close to the same things to eventuate.

Escher's Waterfall said:
Where are you getting this definition?
Click to expand...
What I stated was a bit vague, was just trying to make a point.
 
Well, thank you Jammin, for answering the question about McCain. Your vitriol seemed so personal, is why I asked. I imagine than you have similar thoughts on that little mint julep Lindsay Graham (not rhetorical). Are you saying you're a Bernie Bro for Trump? I knew your type back in the day, angry Chomsky fans. The ones who make it a point to throw a brick at a rally. I never got past the feeling it was just more contrary than well-thought.

You did get me to write a missive, but no one cares, so:
political parties do not equal a person's worldview or even local vague notions about things. Supporting a Republican does not mean you want Jesus in your uterus, for instance. It might though.
Your defs of neo- things are still inconsistent:How can we libs/neolibs/neocons be "bleeding-hearts" when we secretly want to kill Syrian babies for money/oil?

Does that mean McCain is a liberal in your view?

I don't buy the pipeline motive, don't have a better theory though.

Yes, I and every American wants Trump out of office as quickly as possible. His current supporters just don't say it out loud.
 
The fact that we prefer Trump over almost any other politician is a bit worrying. Says more about the state of DC.

I originally supported Sanders until I realized I was being deceived and that he is also a pro-war interventionist. I don't think the Liberal supporters want babies to die, they just put far too much trust in the MSM who are not giving them the full story, hence their support for more war. They honestly believe the Left are conducting wars for humanitarian reasons.

Does that mean McCain is a liberal in your view?
Click to expand...
No it illustrates that the both sides of the ruling establishment are very similar.

I don't buy the pipeline motive, don't have a better theory though.
Click to expand...
It makes the most sense imo
Yes, it's all about the oil... Again: Syria, the ultimate pipeline war
2009 Qatari pipeline: Assad's death warrant
 
Here are all of subotai's posts. I'll just let them speak for themselves:

subotai said:
I'm not a Trump supporter (I dislike both parties equally), but I dont hate the guy either. Here's a few things I feel like are happening over the most controversial president in history.

*ill preface by saying I am a 25 year old white male*

- I feel like it seems like more people hate him than actually do. You don't hear about the people who don't mind him because, generally speaking, they have jobs that take up most of their time, and families that take up the rest. Obviously, somebody had to vote for this guy, or he would not have became President. Silently Majority people, sorry to break the news that it does exist. Obama had millions of people with nothing better to do bused in for his inauguration because it was a once in a lifetime event. First black president's inauguration. History being made. Trump is just another rich white guy who won. And it was raining that day. Doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out why less people showed up.

- most protestors don't even know what they are protesting. It's just something to post on Snapchat. Kind of comical tbh

- He isn't a career politician, and I don't care at all. I'm sick of career politicians. I'm sick of the phrase "well, it's politics!". No, **** that. Nothing changes if nothing changes. Voting in Hillary Clinton does nothing for me because she takes more money from corporations and PACs than Trump by far. I really don't get how people just brush that aside. Democrats do not have your personal interests in mind, they just siphon more money from taxing our workforce to people who make excuses to not get a job. But their votes still count! Democrats basically buy votes from poor people by giving them social services out the wazoo. The rich still get richer whether Democrats or Republicans are in charge, get used to it.

- He bombed Syria, an active war zone. Soooo much worse than Obama ordering more drone strikes than ever before in Pakistan, a supposedly neutral country.

- he said a few racist things. Welp, can't say I never joined him in that endeavor before. But you know something, I always hear from people that they respect honesty over fake ness. At least you know where Trump stands, unlike Hillary who will smile in your face as she smugly looks at all the poor people who voted for her.

-Now, I don't think building a wall on the Mexican border is a good idea at all, because it won't stop the problem. It would create some jobs I guess, but not enough to justify the expense. We need to make careers, not jobs. There needs to be more focus on STEM subjects for impoverished youth to learn a trade, and start working in it once they are of age.

Otherwise, why wouldn't they just resort to living off the dole and making money illegally and tax free? Why would you work at Wendy's for $8 an hour when you can make $80 an hour selling drugs?

Increasing the minimum wage won't help ANYTHING. I hate when people spout that nonsense. All that will do is jack up the cost of living for everyone. I worked minimum wage jobs before, and you know what I did? I GOT ANOTHER JOB! Whoa, who woulda thought it was that easy? Learn how to do something that makes you valuable to an employer, and it will take care of itself. Anyone can make French fries, not everyone can drive the tractor trailers that drop off the French fries. Why should people be paid more for doing something a trained monkey could do? You work your way up, it's only been happening forever all time in human existence but hey, let's go and change that now so everyone can make as much money as they need to have an unlimited cell phone and HBO subscription to watch Game of Thrones and a 70 inch flat screen TV and a new car and cigarettes and weed money and new Jordans. You know, just the essentials.

Are people not being paid enough, or is most of our country just terrible with money management?

I'm just gonna stop here because there's no point in going on, people believe what they want anyway.
Click to expand...

subotai said:
the same way I substantiate everything I talk about, just a gut feeling that usually turns out to be right? Idk


I said you know where he stands, not that he is a "straight shooter". You know he doesnt like foreigners, but he cant just come right out and say that.

A lot of the stuff that people bash Trump for doing is stuff that I dont really have a problem with tbh. Like being racist or disparaging women or banning Islamic people from entering the US.

None of it affects me

and thats pretty much all I have to say about politics. If it doesnt affect me, I dont care.

I don't follow the day-to-day wrongdoings of the President, but I also dont bitch about them every day either

so its a fair exchange IMO
Click to expand...

subotai said:
I can't really refute any of that. I don't vote, don't care about other people that might be different than me, and certainly don't get too caught up in politics.

I dont really like Trump as a person, but I can't really say I liked any politician as a person. Honestly, Trump is just the perfect representation of what I feel Washington has been for a long time now. A big joke
Click to expand...

subotai said:
until, 857 impeachments later, we finally turn things around with President Fieri and his open door policy with Flavortown
Click to expand...

Here's my take
cduggles:
We get it. You're a white guy who doesn't care about politics. You are fine with Trump because like him you're a racist, sexist, shameless person who is uninterested in learning anything new. He has your dream life. Great.

You stumbled into Current Events and Politics. Why don't you head back to the Lounge or try Drug Culture? Or another forum? Or another website?

Great talk.

Why are these people coming out of the woodwork? Is there some white supremacy site getting them all lathered up?


If you disagree with my take on this guy, then fine. I stand behind it 100%. It's my opinion.
I get to have one even if it's not the one a sensitive snowflake would have. ;)

However, if you think I told him he can't post here then you have a serious issue with reading comprehension.
 
LiquidMethod said:
What I stated was a bit vague, was just trying to make a point.
Click to expand...

Just FYI, "neoliberal" has had a meaning for the past few decades which is entirely different from how you are using the word.

I'll quote Wikipedia:

Neoliberalism (neo-liberalism)[1] refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2]:7 These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, unrestricted free trade,[3] and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.[11] These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.

The term has been used in English since the start of the 20th century with different meanings,[14] but became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and 1980s by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences,[15][16] as well as being used by critics.[17][18] Modern advocates of free market policies avoid the term "neoliberal"[19] and some scholars have described the term as meaning different things to different people,[20][21] as neoliberalism "mutated" into geopolitically distinct hybrids as it travelled around the world.[4] As such, neoliberalism shares many attributes with other contested concepts, including democracy.[5]

The definition and usage of the term have changed over time.[5] It was originally an economic philosophy that emerged among European liberal scholars in the 1930s in an attempt to trace a so-called "third" or "middle" way between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and socialist planning.[22]:14–5 The impetus for this development arose from a desire to avoid repeating the economic failures of the early 1930s, which were mostly blamed by neoliberals on the economic policy of classical liberalism. In the decades that followed, the use of the term neoliberal tended to refer to theories at variance with the more laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism, and promoted instead a market economy under the guidance and rules of a strong state, a model which came to be known as the social market economy.

In the 1960s, usage of the term "neoliberal" heavily declined. When the term was reintroduced in the 1980s in connection with Augusto Pinochet's economic reforms in Chile, the usage of the term had shifted. It had not only become a term with negative connotations employed principally by critics of market reform, but it also had shifted in meaning from a moderate form of liberalism to a more radical and laissez-faire capitalist set of ideas. Scholars now tended to associate it with the theories of economists Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and James M. Buchanan, along with politicians and policy-makers such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan.[5][23] Once the new meaning of neoliberalism was established as a common usage among Spanish-speaking scholars, it diffused into the English-language study of political economy.[5] By 1994, with the passage of NAFTA and the Zapatistas' reaction to this development in Chiapas, the term entered global circulation.[4] Scholarship on the phenomenon of neoliberalism has been growing.[16] The impact of the global 2008–2009 crisis has also given rise to new scholarship that critiques neoliberalism and seeks developmental alternatives.[24]
Click to expand...

- Article
 
Can I add that while I am pro-free trade I don't buy into the austerity bullshit. Or privatization. <--THAT has been a fucking disaster.

So no, I don't like the label.
 
Somerandomdude said:
It's fucking laughable how clueless you guys are about all this. Still.

Being a condescending wanker and talking to people you don't agree with (who happen to want to protect their country) and accusing them of being white supremacists, is not an effective method of argument. The silent majority still rules. People like you can try all you want to silence them. You will never win.

People want to preserve their way of life and protect their borders. Your time will never come. Ours will never end.
Click to expand...

Nice language.

Why is it that "people like you" have no reading comprehension skills?

I called the self-identified white male who, among other things stated that like Trump, he makes racist remarks a racist. Real stretch there.

You apparently don't know this, which surprises me, but there is a difference between calling someone a "white supremacist" and a "racist". Ask around- I strongly suspect someone you know can explain it to you. ;)

How did I try to silence him? I didn't and it's an internet forum. So sensitive!

A condescending wanker? Cool. :)

My time will never come? Yeah, okay. If this is not my time, I'll take it.

Good luck stopping globalization! And keeping our climate separate inside our not-protected borders! :D

Thanks for your post and for calling me a wanker. It was fun correcting you. A real bright spot, I won't lie. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top