Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
wvParticipantgreat video. and then i went to read the comments section. it made me want to crawl into a hole.
yeah. they’re being lied to and manipulated. and they’re not necessarily racist or homophobic or misogynist. they’re just scared.
===================
Yeah the comments are well worth
reading.w
vwvParticipantGood stuff. From the article above:
“… The disenfranchised turn instead to a virulent anti-politics in which facts and arguments are replaced by slogans, symbols and sensation. The man who sank Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency was not Donald Trump. It was her husband.
The paradoxical result is that the backlash against neoliberalism’s crushing of political choice has elevated just the kind of man that Hayek worshipped. Trump, who has no coherent politics, is not a classic neoliberal. But he is the perfect representation of Hayek’s “independent”; the beneficiary of inherited wealth, unconstrained by common morality, whose gross predilections strike a new path that others may follow. The neoliberal thinktankers are now swarming round this hollow man, this empty vessel waiting to be filled by those who know what they want. The likely result is the demolition of our remaining decencies, beginning with the agreement to limit global warming….”
w
vwvParticipantlink:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/14/neoliberalsim-donald-trump-george-monbiot?CMP=share_btn_fb
Neoliberalism: the deep story that lies beneath Donald Trump’s triumph
George MonbiotMonday 14 November 2016 01.30 EST
The events that led to Donald Trump’s election started in England in 1975. At a meeting a few months after Margaret Thatcher became leader of the Conservative party, one of her colleagues, or so the story goes, was explaining what he saw as the core beliefs of conservatism. She snapped open her handbag, pulled out a dog-eared book, and slammed it on the table. “This is what we believe,” she said. A political revolution that would sweep the world had begun.
The book was The Constitution of Liberty by Frederick Hayek. Its publication, in 1960, marked the transition from an honest, if extreme, philosophy to an outright racket. The philosophy was called neoliberalism. It saw competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. The market would discover a natural hierarchy of winners and losers, creating a more efficient system than could ever be devised through planning or by design. Anything that impeded this process, such as significant tax, regulation, trade union activity or state provision, was counter-productive. Unrestricted entrepreneurs would create the wealth that would trickle down to everyone.
This, at any rate, is how it was originally conceived. But by the time Hayek came to write The Constitution of Liberty, the network of lobbyists and thinkers he had founded was being lavishly funded by multimillionaires who saw the doctrine as a means of defending themselves against democracy. Not every aspect of the neoliberal programme advanced their interests. Hayek, it seems, set out to close the gap.
He begins the book by advancing the narrowest possible conception of liberty: an absence of coercion. He rejects such notions as political freedom, universal rights, human equality and the distribution of wealth, all of which, by restricting the behaviour of the wealthy and powerful, intrude on the absolute freedom from coercion he demands.
AdvertisementDemocracy, by contrast, “is not an ultimate or absolute value”. In fact, liberty depends on preventing the majority from exercising choice over the direction that politics and society might take.
He justifies this position by creating a heroic narrative of extreme wealth. He conflates the economic elite, spending their money in new ways, with philosophical and scientific pioneers. Just as the political philosopher should be free to think the unthinkable, so the very rich should be free to do the undoable, without constraint by public interest or public opinion.
The ultra rich are “scouts”, “experimenting with new styles of living”, who blaze the trails that the rest of society will follow. The progress of society depends on the liberty of these “independents” to gain as much money as they want and spend it how they wish. All that is good and useful, therefore, arises from inequality. There should be no connection between merit and reward, no distinction made between earned and unearned income, and no limit to the rents they can charge.
The stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read moreInherited wealth is more socially useful than earned wealth: “the idle rich”, who don’t have to work for their money, can devote themselves to influencing “fields of thought and opinion, of tastes and beliefs.” Even when they seem to be spending money on nothing but “aimless display”, they are in fact acting as society’s vanguard.
Hayek softened his opposition to monopolies and hardened his opposition to trade unions. He lambasted progressive taxation and attempts by the state to raise the general welfare of citizens. He insisted that there is “an overwhelming case against a free health service for all” and dismissed the conservation of natural resources.It should come as no surprise to those who follow such matters that he was awarded the Nobel prize for economics.
By the time Mrs Thatcher slammed his book on the table, a lively network of thinktanks, lobbyists and academics promoting Hayek’s doctrines had been established on both sides of the Atlantic, abundantly financed by some of the world’s richest people and businesses, including DuPont, General Electric, the Coors brewing company, Charles Koch, Richard Mellon Scaife, Lawrence Fertig, the William Volker Fund and the Earhart Foundation. Using psychology and linguistics to brilliant effect, the thinkers these people sponsored found the words and arguments required to turn Hayek’s anthem to the elite into a plausible political programme.
The ideologies Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan espoused were just two facets of neoliberalism.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
The ideologies Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan espoused were just two facets of neoliberalism. Photograph: Bettmann/Bettmann ArchiveThatcherism and Reaganism were not ideologies in their own right: they were just two faces of neoliberalism. Their massive tax cuts for the rich, crushing of trade unions, reduction in public housing, deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services were all proposed by Hayek and his disciples. But the real triumph of this network was not its capture of the right, but its colonisation of parties that once stood for everything Hayek detested.
Bill Clinton and Tony Blair did not possess a narrative of their own. Rather than develop a new political story, they thought it was sufficient to triangulate. In other words, they extracted a few elements of what their parties had once believed, mixed them with elements of what their opponents believed, and developed from this unlikely combination a “third way”.
It was inevitable that the blazing, insurrectionary confidence of neoliberalism would exert a stronger gravitational pull than the dying star of social democracy. Hayek’s triumph could be witnessed everywhere from Blair’s expansion of the private finance initiative to Clinton’s repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, which had regulated the financial sector. For all his grace and touch, Barack Obama, who didn’t possess a narrative either (except “hope”), was slowly reeled in by those who owned the means of persuasion.
Current Time 0:00
/
Duration Time 2:32
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
Mute
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
What will be the first actions Trump takes as president?As I warned in April, the result is first disempowerment then disenfranchisement. If the dominant ideology stops governments from changing social outcomes, they can no longer respond to the needs of the electorate. Politics becomes irrelevant to people’s lives; debate is reduced to the jabber of a remote elite. The disenfranchised turn instead to a virulent anti-politics in which facts and arguments are replaced by slogans, symbols and sensation. The man who sank Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency was not Donald Trump. It was her husband.
The paradoxical result is that the backlash against neoliberalism’s crushing of political choice has elevated just the kind of man that Hayek worshipped. Trump, who has no coherent politics, is not a classic neoliberal. But he is the perfect representation of Hayek’s “independent”; the beneficiary of inherited wealth, unconstrained by common morality, whose gross predilections strike a new path that others may follow. The neoliberal thinktankers are now swarming round this hollow man, this empty vessel waiting to be filled by those who know what they want. The likely result is the demolition of our remaining decencies, beginning with the agreement to limit global warming.
AdvertisementThose who tell the stories run the world. Politics has failed through a lack of competing narratives. The key task now is to tell a new story of what it is to be a human in the 21st century. It must be as appealing to some who have voted for Trump and Ukip as it is to the supporters of Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn.
A few of us have been working on this, and can discern what may be the beginning of a story. It’s too early to say much yet, but at its core is the recognition that – as modern psychology and neuroscience make abundantly clear – human beings, by comparison with any other animals, are both remarkably social and remarkably unselfish. The atomisation and self-interested behaviour neoliberalism promotes run counter to much of what comprises human nature.
Hayek told us who we are, and he was wrong. Our first step is to reclaim our humanity.
wvParticipantTaunting Billy is not classy.
w
vwvParticipantI think the Corporations and Banks and usual insiders
will be very happy with the Billionaire real-estate man.Look at his cabinet. Thats all you need to know. Look at his cabinet.
w
v-
This reply was modified 9 years, 11 months ago by
wv.
wvParticipantwvParticipantSo that’s what passes as highlights for the Los Angeles Rams these days.
Here’s a few more:
Tavon catches a 5 yd out
Gurley doesn’t get hit in the backfield
Rams get positive yardage on screen pass
Robinson doesn’t hold on off tackle run
——————
I just think they have gone all ‘Hollywood’. Ya know. Its all flash and glitz and excitement since they moved to LA.
w
vwvParticipantRFIP noticed that the Rams are 2-1 when they DONT score any TDs.
So the analytix say the Rams need to only kick Field Goals
and then they have a chance to be a contender.The problem is the offense often scores a TD or even two. Now Fisher must know the math.
And yet he continues to TRY to score TDs. That right there tells me all i need
to know about Fisher.w
vwvParticipantThe Rams beat a bad team that started a below average quarterback. We beat the AFC version of the Rams.
A win next week (at home!) has to happen. If it doesn’t, the 7-9 BS train is pulling into the station.
————-
Well even if they win, they may be on the 7-9-BS train. They are now 4-5.
Let us look at the schedule…To get to that lofty, unimaginable EIGHT win summit, they need to scrounge and claw four more hideously-ugly wins out of the next seven games:
Miami
At Saints
At Pats
Atlanta
At Seattle
SF
ArizMaybe that last game will be the game that decides whether its 7-9-Bullshit, OR,
Eight-and-Eight-Mediocrity.w
vwvParticipantIn his tenure with the Rams has Fisher ever won
back to back Out-of-Conference games?I think not.
Has he even won back to back out-of-division games?
w
vwvParticipantNothing is written in stone that he has to start in front of the home crowd…in fact, because I don’t think the ineffectiveness is all on CK, it might be good idea to start him away from the coliseum.
CK will continue to start as long as the Rams have a chance to grab a piece of that pie….did somebody say pie?
—————-
I guess he did enough to please Fisher.When Case doesnt throw pick6’s they tend to win.
w
vwvParticipantI don’t know–but as a Rams fan I kinda feel like I’m somewhere between the fifth and sixth level right now. If they beat Miami maybe we get to fourth?
————–
I dunno. I think offensive coordinators go to level 6.
w
vwvParticipantAnother nailbiter. Who woulda thunk it???
————-
I guess thats two games where Ogletree sealed the win
with a late Turnover.Still not many sacks for this D or turnovers.
w
vwvParticipantOK, since no-one can think of anything happy to recommend to the children of tomorrow,
maybe we can just give them stuff like this to read:Weapons of War Litter the Ocean Floor
At least one million tonnes of chemical weapons were dumped in the oceans between 1919 and 1980. Now what?
by Andrew Currylink:https://www.hakaimagazine.com/article-long/weapons-war-litter-ocean-floor
“…Experts estimate that one million tonnes of chemical weapons lie on the ocean floor—from Italy’s Bari harbor, where 230 sulfur mustard exposure cases have been reported since 1946, to the US east coast, where sulfur mustard bombs have shown up three times in the past twelve years in Delaware, likely brought in with loads of shellfish.
“It’s a global problem. It’s not regional, and it’s not isolated,” says Terrance Long, chair of the International Dialogue on Underwater Munitions (IDUM), a Dutch foundation based in The Hague, Netherlands.
Today, scientists are looking for signs of environmental damage, as the bombs rust away on the seafloor and potentially leak their deadly payloads. And as the world’s fishing vessels trawl for deep-diving cod and corporations drill for oil and gas beneath the ocean floor and install wind turbines on the surface, the scientific quest to locate and deal with these chemical weapons has become a race against the clock…” see link
w
vwvParticipantI’ll be interested in where the Defense ranks
after that game.I’ll also be interested to see where they rank
after the Saint and Patriot games 🙂w
vwvParticipantIt’s the 3rd qtr the Rams have 3 pts.
Keenum has an 80.8 QBR.
Welp, 7 days until the Jared Goff era officially begins I suppose, unless Keenum miraculously transforms into a QB that can carry a team that can only muster 39 yds rushing in nearly 3 quarters of a football game.
================
Well Miami makes perfect sense to Start Goff.IF they dont start him at home against Miami
they’d have to start him on the road at NO,
or on the road at New England.Or wait until the Atlanta game. I suppose thats possible.
Then they play the tough Seahawks in Seattle.
Then Forty niners at home.
Arizona’s tough D at home.Just seems like Miami is a good choice. Or possibly Atlanta.
w
vwvParticipantAgainst a 3-6 team.
Story of Fisher’s Year 5.
w
vJets have a top DL and are 4th against the run.
And the Rams end up with 125 rushing yards
————
Plus, they had more than 39 yards rushing in the first half. I misread the stat.
But other than that, it was a good post, I’d say. 🙂
w
vwvParticipantSecondly, based on the appointments, it’s clear that Pence is setting himself up to be the next Dick Cheney. Virtually every appointment looks to be a hard right Conservative and many are actually against much of what Trump ran on.
—————-
Well just so you know, Pence-Trump just appointed Lord Voldemort
to be the Secretary of Doom.I was hoping it would be Sauron, but the hardliners must
have persuaded Trump to go with Voldemort.…yeah its bad. I remember when so many Dem-libs were all a-flutter over newly elected Obama. And i kept saying look at who contributed to his campaign and look at who he CHOSE to be part of his cabinet. It was all right there.
Same with Trump. He is not what his fans think he is. Look at his cabinet CHOICES. You dont need to know anything else. Its right there. Aint no ‘outsiders’ on the cabinet are there 🙂
w
vwvParticipantI mean…the truth is Trump won, and Republicans control the Senate, Congress, and will soon control the Supreme Court.
And in 2018, things will possibly get worse because the Dems have 5 Senators up for re-election in red states, and 4 up for re-election in purple states, so the Republicans could get a filibuster proof absolute majority in the Senate.
I don’t know what to say. “Chicken Soup for the Teenage Soul” isn’t going to have much impact in the face of that. I’m sorry I was so blunt. I obviously struck the wrong tone.
————–
Nah, not with me you didnt. I got no problem with anything you said or the ‘tone’.I got no book recommendations either.
w
vwvParticipantJesus, I swear the Clinton supporters (or anti-Trump people, I guess) are going through the five stages of grief, or whatever it is.
Recently, there has been a bunch of Denial…articles and op-eds reassuring us that Trump can’t be as awful as he wants to be. All the Anger in the protests.
And yesterday, I don’t know what it was, I got into the car a couple of times and had NPR on, and there was like this collective mourning going on, some sad commiseration with a woman who went to buy a bunch of hats because she’s afraid to wear a hijab, and interviews with cops and military people whose loyalty to their comrades outweighs their political differences, and I don’t know. All the NPR people just sounded so sad, and bleeding heart, I wanted to throw up, but didn’t have to because I didn’t listen for more than a few minutes at a time as I ran errands.
So they want something positive to read?
Tell them to fucking set down their reading material, and go play with their kids, or take a hike along a river with a friend, or lend a hand in some charity. Get back to living life, and make some positive connections with other humans.
Stop all this mopey bullshit and make a stranger smile somewhere.
Seriously.
It will shake the grief faster than any prescriptive book will.
—————-
Yeah, ok, i have the same reaction to the NPR-liberal crowd.
But the blog i was reading had a post by a school counselor and she was really
talking about young people. Teens looking for inspiration, reasons to BE, etc.w
vwvParticipantOkay, so I am preparing a lesson on War Poetry, and I already have this one, and the Thomas Hardy one in mind. I think it’s “The Man I Killed.”
Any other memorable war poems anyone can think of?
—————
Death of the Ball Turret GunnerFrom my mother’s sleep I fell into the State,
And I hunched in its belly till my wet fur froze.
Six miles from earth, loosed from its dream of life,
I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters.
When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.Randall Jarrell
w
v
=========“1) Did the people of Viet Nam
use lanterns of stone?
2) Did they hold ceremonies
to reverence the opening of buds?
3) Were they inclined to quiet laughter?
4) Did they use bone and ivory,
jade and silver, for ornament?
5) Had they an epic poem?
6) Did they distinguish between speech and singing?1) Sir, their light hearts turned to stone.
It is not remembered whether in gardens
stone lanterns illumined pleasant ways.
2) Perhaps they gathered once to delight in blossom,
but after the children were killed
there were no more buds.
3) Sir, laughter is bitter to the burned mouth.
4) A dream ago, perhaps. Ornament is for joy.
All the bones were charred.
5) It is not remembered. Remember,
most were peasants; their life
was in rice and bamboo.
When peaceful clouds were reflected in the paddies
and the water buffalo stepped surely along terraces,
maybe fathers told their sons old tales.
When bombs smashed those mirrors
there was time only to scream.
6) There is an echo yet
of their speech which was like a song.
It was reported their singing resembled
the flight of moths in moonlight.
Who can say? It is silent now.”
― Denise Levertov, Poems, 1960-1967===========
Army Burn Ward
This poem was written about the pain of Vietnam;it could be about tomorrow. Please. Peace.
First the doctor peels dead skin away.
“Debriding,” like a teacher, names it.
(Like a virgin, like a pockmarked whore.)
Then the whirlpool, pain-pull spiralling down
like fire, like broken birds inside him.
(Like a winter wedded to the bone.)
Then the grafting, four long strips of skin.
“Rebriding,” in his shock he giggles,
(Gagging like a schoolboy, like a groom.)
gagging as his new skin wrinkles, worms,
rejecting him. Again the whirlpool
(Like an April pain in soft swarms twirled.)
wheels and stops. The sink-plug pulled, he stares
(Like an empty coat, a burned-out star.)
unblinking as the brides inside him die.
Martin Galvin
——————–
Trying to Write a Poem Against the War
My daughter, who’s as beautiful as the day,
hates politics: Face it, Ma,
they don’t care what you think! All
passion, like Achilles,
she stalks off to her room,
to confide in her purple guitar and await
life’s embassies. She’s right,
of course: bombs will be hurled
at ordinary streets
and leaders look grave for the cameras,
and what good are more poems against war
the real subject of which
so often seems to be the poet’s superior
moral sensitivities? I could
be mailing myself to the moon
or marrying a palm tree,
and yet what can we do
but offer what we have?
and so I spend
this cold gray glittering morning
trying to write a poem against war
that perhaps may please my daughter
who hates politics
and does not care much for poetry, either.
Katha Pollit————–
After Viewing the Holocaust Museum’s Room of Shoes
and a Gallery of Plains’ Indian Moccasins, Washington, D.C.
By Tiffany Midge
The portrait is clear;
one is art
the other evidence.
One is artifact
the other atrocity.
Each is interned
behind glass,
with diagrams
and panels,
a testament to miles
walked. Both
are worn,
each are a pair,
one is cobbled
the other beaded.
At my tour’s end
can I buy a key-chain shoe?
Will I be assigned
the ID card
of one of the perished
at Wounded Knee?
The moccasins
are beautiful. Seed pearls
woven intricate as lace.
We don’t mourn
the elegant doe skins,
we admire the handicraft.
We don’t ask from whose soles
do these relics come from?
We don’t look for signs of resistance,
or evidence of blood.
We don’t wonder
perhaps he was of a ripe
old age and died in his sleep.
Perhaps this child
traded for a stick of candy
or a pinch of dried meat.
We don’t assume
any original ownership at all.
Their deaths weren’t curated
not part of an installation. We
don’t absorb their violent
or harrowing ends under soft
lights or dramatic shadows.
We look right
through them,
more invisible
than the sighs
of ghosts.
And then we move
on to the next
viewing,
to another
collector’s trophy
lying
under the glass
==============More Light! More Light!
by Anthony HechtFor Heinrich Blucher and Hannah Arendt
Composed in the Tower before his execution
These moving verses, and being brought at that time
Painfully to the stake, submitted, declaring thus:
“I implore my God to witness that I have made no crime.”Nor was he forsaken of courage, but the death was horrible,
The sack of gunpowder failing to ignite.
His legs were blistered sticks on which the black sap
Bubbled and burst as he howled for the Kindly Light.And that was but one, and by no means one of he worst;
Permitted at least his pitiful dignity;
And such as were by made prayers in the name of Christ,
That shall judge all men, for his soul’s tranquility.We move now to outside a German wood.
Three men are there commanded to dig a hole
In which the two Jews are ordered to lie down
And be buried alive by the third, who is a Pole.Not light from the shrine at Weimar beyond the hill
Nor light from heaven appeared. But he did refuse.
A Luger settled back deeply in its glove.
He was ordered to change places with the Jews.Much casual death had drained away their souls.
The thick dirt mounted toward the quivering chin.
When only the head was exposed the order came
To dig him out again and to get back in.No light, no light in the blue Polish eye.
When he finished a riding boot packed down the earth.
The Luger hovered lightly in its glove.
He was shot in the belly and in three hours bled to death.No prayers or incense rose up in those hours
Which grew to be years, and every day came mute
Ghosts from the ovens, sifting through crisp air,
And settled upon his eyes in a black soot.
————wvParticipantBryce Petty starting for Jets, i read.
w
vwvParticipantIf they don’t win this game, I just don’t know anymore.
It’s like Lombardicus, the God of Football, is trying to gift us this one.————–
Well all I know is the path to 7-9 goes through New York.
w
vwvParticipant—————–
Trump Kids Join Transition Team – and Trump Organization Management TeamRead more: https://sputniknews.com/politics/201611121047376564-Trump-kids-join-transition-team/
Link:https://sputniknews.com/politics/201611121047376564-Trump-kids-join-transition-team/US President-elect Donald Trump has shifted his children and relatives from his campaign to his transition team, naming daughter Ivanka, sons Donald Jr. and Eric, and son-in-law Jared Kushner on November 11 to the 16-member executive committee that will help choose his cabinet and guide his early strategies.
Vice President-elect Mike Pence is heading the team, having taken over for Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey. Protestors are detained by Los Angeles Police Department officers after a march and rally against the election of Republican Donald Trump as President of the United States in Los Angeles, California, U.S © REUTERS/ Kevork Djansezian #NotMyPresident: US Response to Anti-Trump Protests Shows Double Standards in Full Play Trump’s administration will need to make thousands of political appointments in the coming weeks.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, retired Lieutenant-General Michael Flynn, Goldman Sachs veteran Steven Mnuchin, former Senator Kelly Ayotte, JP Morgan chief executive Jamie Dimon, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin are among those whose names have been floated for high level positions in the new administration. “The mission of our team will be clear: put together the most highly qualified group of successful leaders who will be able to implement our change agenda in Washington,” Trump said in a statement. The Trump Organization said the same day that it intends to transfer management control of the company to Ivanka, Eric and Donald Jr. and a team of executives. “This is a top priority at the organization and the structure that is ultimately selected will comply with all applicable rules and regulations,” the statement said.
Trump had said during the campaign that he would put his assets in a blind trust, as most presidents do. Typically, a blind trust uses an independent financial manager with no relationship to the owner: having one’s children as managers does not fit that description. “It doesn’t meet any of the standards of a blind trust if the kids are running the company,” Kenneth Gross, a Washington lawyer who advises political clients on compliance and ethics, told Reuters. “If they’re going to be involved in government functions – and they’re starting down that road – and running the business, that’s going to make it very difficult to separate the government and business functions and deal with the conflicts of interest,” Gross said. Flags of the US and China © AP Photo/ Ng Han Guan, Pool ‘Adjusting the Strategy’: Trump Signals US Wants Broader Economic Cooperation With China There are reports that Trump’s team seems unready for the actual tasks of governing.
The Los Angeles times reports that after Trump’s November 10 meeting at the White House, Obama officials noted that the president-elect and his staff seemed unprepared to discuss staffing issues and not fully aware of the scope of the process. A follow up meeting scheduled between aides of the incoming and outgoing administrations was cancelled. A Republican source told Reuters that with the GOP bracing for a loss throughout the campaign, little solid transition planning had been done. “I was on [2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt] Romney’s transition team, and it was a well-oiled machine months before the election. Now there’s a scramble,” the source said.
Read more: https://sputniknews.com/politics/201611121047376564-Trump-kids-join-transition-team/
November 12, 2016 at 7:27 pm in reply to: Robert Reich: The Democratic Party Needs To Clean House #57996wvParticipantDemocrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and for four of those years had control of both houses of Congress. But in that time they failed to reverse the decline in working-class wages and economic security. Both Bill Clinton and Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.
I submit that it’s THAT, and not some sort of White Supremacist movement, that got Trump in. And Killory appeared to offer no substantive change in the status quo. Just cliche’s and regurgitated ‘feels’. And she had the audacity to Champion the state of the Nation and the glorious job Obama had done up to that point. Really? Maybe to the Hollywood elite things were all sunshine and lollipops, but I don’t think she made a concerted effort to really *iisten* to the people. Trump did, and he probably structured his whole campaign around saying the things they all wanted to hear. As bad as that is (if true), how stupid do you have to be to argue against the things he was saying about the economy, and insult the very people who were buying into it? Any one of you on this board could have done a better job advising her throughout her campaign in the general. I’m 100% sure of it.
————–
Well i think Reich is Right about what got Trump in,
but my own view is that the powers-that-be are just fine with Trump. Or Killery.Neither threaten the power structures and both will/would increase inequality
and enrich the banks and corporations.I know you disagree. We shall see in the next four years.
w
vwvParticipantSomebody ought to do one with Hitler having a view on the Fire Fisher v Keep Fisher
controversy.As you wish.
————
LoL. Orange Fanta??
w
vwvParticipantSomething for NMR, bnw, and X
🙂
w
vwvParticipantOh, that’s a good one, WV!
————
Somebody ought to do one with Hitler having a view on the Fire Fisher v Keep Fisher
controversy.w
vwvParticipantyes. many many different sides.
———–
You dont get into long hostile fights with politically-different-posters, Invader.
Care to share your approach? Or your purpose in posting pol-thots?
w
vmy approach. i just try to go in with an open mind. i think the reasons everyone here is upset actually overlap in some places. and there are wide chasms in others. i guess i am not willing to stubbornly cling to my own ideas. more just curious as to why people believe what they believe? i guess ultimately. on a philosophical level we’re all just completely lost. we have our own belief systems. we have our own experiences that have shaped us, and i just sit here in wonderment at all the different opinions being put out here on this board. cuz i believe everyone here is decent (or at least decent as a human can be). i believe that on some level all the pain here and frustration is born out of caring. even if that can often be misguided.
and even if it does come from a place of hate. for some reason i’m ok with that too.
don’t ask me why. i don’t know. i can’t really explain it, and maybe it doesn’t even make any sense. maybe it’s cuz in the end i think that none of this even means anything.
i do know that people in general are hurting on both sides. just want to see where all that hurt is coming from. on both sides.
——————
Interesting thoughts, Invader. I will mull them over.Btw you said everyone on the board is ‘a decent human being’ — you are not including Zooey in that are you?
w
vwvParticipant___________________________________________________
So, you’re saying it’s ok for the “right” to compromise, but not the “left?”
See, I don’t see compromise as “throwing in the towel.” I see it as negotiation. Both sides get something out of it they can both feel good about (again, remember I know there are more than 2 sides to politics, but bear with me please). Just pushing and ramming through things all the time is tiring and creates friction before the next fight even begins. IMO, this is where Obama failed as a President.
I know extreme rightists will be disappointed in Trump and probably say the same thing about him, that he will “give in” too quickly and not fight. Just watch.
————
No. Nowhere in this thread or any other did i say anything like “The right should compromise and the left should not”.I said there are different subjective ‘truths’ here.
You — as a person of the right — think Obama ‘forced things through without compromising’.
I as a person of the far-left, see Obama as a person that never rammed anything through and didnt fight for anything and constantly compromised with the Right.
My point isnt even about Obama or Politics. My point is about POSTING.
Since people of the right honestly, sincerely see things one way.
And people of the left honestly sincerely see things a different way — there will always be differences. And we can either bash one another on the heads trying to ‘prove’ something and getting our ‘egos’ all involved.Or. We can share our opinions (like i just did about Obama),
listen to the opposing view.
ACKNOWLEDGE the DIFFERENCES.
and then agree to disagree and move on to the next…disagreement 🙂I get tired of the long drawn-out bickerfests. Thats another way of saying
what I’m tryin to say 🙂I’m not pointing fingers at anyone — just venting.
w
v -
This reply was modified 9 years, 11 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
