And more importantly a very deliberate misrepresentation of the argument you actually made.There you have it, any attempt at discussion beyond the very immedate day to day events met with irrational levels of hostility.
There you have it, any attempt at discussion beyond the very immedate day to day events met with irrational levels of hostility.
And more importantly a very deliberate misrepresentation of the argument you actually made.
Because I never said it. Just like J Ed didn't say what you said he said. I sense a pattern.From the guy who now says he never said he was going to ignore me.
Because I never said it. Just like J Ed didn't say what you said he said. I sense a pattern.
That only holds water if you think there's any chance that the departing CEO is going to set about reducing the price of drugs, which is the opposite of his job presumably.. it's not about reality is it, its about crowd-pleasing attempts at having the last word.I'm going to disagree, the Putin one was just stupid. The US diplomats are still on the payroll, even if they aren't working in Russia.
That only holds water if you think there's any chance that the departing CEO is going to set about reducing the price of drugs, which is the opposite of his job presumably.. it's not about reality is it, its about crowd-pleasing attempts at having the last word.
Trump has quite successfully managed to reframe the resignation in a populist way, and he wouldn't have been able to do so without liberals lionising the role of corporate actors who most Americans rightly despise.
Corporate actors who are charged with maximising structural inequalities which impoverish working-class people as much as is possible become 'a black CEO', as if they are just another person off of the street with as much power as a single voter.
master plan to isolate big pharma by targeting a CEO who quits because of Trump's handling of Charlottesville.
What J Ed said was:
And
Which you've somehow managed to mangle into:
Which bears no relation whatsoever to what he actually said.
Which means you're either a liar or you have some serious reading comprehension problems. Or both.
Please just shut up.
Fuck Off. There's literally no basis to support that assertion that that was Trump's intention. As to whether that should be the discussion we're having as per usual J Ed is utterly bereft of ideas.
Similarly, I think theres a time and a place for a discussion about the evils of Neo Liberalism, and this thread isn't it. Furthermore, someone wanting to discuss the evils of Neo Liberalism when there are armed fascists on the streets is a particularly stupid time. Akin to trying to co opt the Guards in Beslen into a prisoner lead a discussion on the pearls of the capitalist state, that might be the overall problem at the root of the issue but it's not going to fix the current crisis
Trump himself is the CEO extraordinaire though, he's the epitome of 'these people', triumphantly squeezing the maximum profit out of every venture (or so he'd have folk believe) so it's hard to see how he manages to pull off any sort of anti-capitalist posturing that anyone could take seriously, I mean people knew him for his stardom on the Apprentice, as a businessman, a titan of capitalism, so I really don't think a tweet that says "stop making so much profit you nasty man" will convince anyone that Donald Trump has really got the interests of poor people at heart.No, it's about presenting the person who left as someone working against the interests of the majority of Americans which he is thereby presenting his departure as something other than a victory over him. It allows Trump to remind the public of the role of these people without actually doing anything to mitigate it. If the Dems had a left populist agenda they could expose this, but they don't so instead we get 'woke CEO' narrative.
I don't agree with everything he says but at least he has ideas. You offer at best a chicken little impersonation and at worst repeated attempts to shut down actual political debate with abuse. You're disgusting.Fuck Off. There's literally no basis to support that assertion that that was Trump's intention. As to whether that should be the discussion we're having as per usual J Ed is utterly bereft of ideas.
Similarly, I think theres a time and a place for a discussion about the evils of Neo Liberalism, and this thread isn't it. Furthermore, someone wanting to discuss the evils of Neo Liberalism when there are armed fascists on the streets is a particularly stupid time. Akin to trying to co opt the Guards in Beslen into a prisoner lead a discussion on the pearls of the capitalist state, that might be the overall problem at the root of the issue but it's not going to fix the current crisis
Goes over the probably necessary Dem fudge for 2020. Even if you buy the fantasy that the billionaire Trump's appeal had been based in economics and class issues rather than open cultural warfare the divided Dems are simply not going to run against him on purely pocketbook terms. Because as this explains the Dems are close to being a party with a majority of minority group voters and that sets different priorities. The venerated plutocrat Trump meanwhile is the champion of the aggrieved, older white male of all classes but the poorest. It's likely to be a very dirty battle on his terms. His biggest problem may well be instead of being a "wealth creating" CEO God of capitalism his very American voters put faith in he is now reduced to being just another a grubby DC politician and really a shockingly inept one....
I suspect Democrats will largely take the middle course: more populism, less talk about race and identity but without any real shifts in position on those issues. This is essentially a bet that Trump’s unpopularity will help lift the Democratic Party to major gains, so they don’t need a broader political course correction on race and identity. Such a middle course would also acknowledge reality: Democrats, with a party that is about 45 percent non-white, can’t try to ape Trump’s racial appeals to woo whites. The days of a Democrat running for president and distancing himself from a black hip-hop artist to appeal to whites (as Bill Clinton did in 1992) are probably over. Not moving right would also reflect the increasing liberalism of the Democratic Party.
But this is a tense divide, and a hard one for Democrats to discuss openly. The voices in the party advocating that it tone down its cultural messages tend to be white and male, while the strongest advocates of strong liberal stands on identity issues are often female and nonwhite.
...
I don't agree with everything he says but at least he has ideas. You offer at best a chicken little impersonation and at worst repeated attempts to shut down actual political debate with abuse. You're disgusting.
This is the thread for discussing the Trump presidency. There are other threads where you can bravely stand alongside the other liberals opposing fascism by posting about it on the internet. It's sickening however to try to use what happened to shut down political debate.
Total historical illiteracy and ignorance here. As far as fascism and opposition to the current economic system goes... who the fuck do you think made up the bulk of the French resistance? The Spanish Second Republic? The Bund? The woman who was killed the other day was Heather Heyer, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.
In any case, Donald Trump is running a neoliberal economic policy, and you are connecting the fascists in Charlottesville to Donald Trump presumably. Are you saying that you can talk about Trump himself but not his actual economic policies?
Sorry but just because you want to be lead around by the nose over a series of emotive culture war issues without taking a second to consider the wider socioeconomic context doesn't mean that the rest of us want that.
Non Sequitur
Yes, and the Dems are doing the same thing with Russia. Lots of surface level noise, some of it materially awful of course, but none of it really threatening the structures of neoliberalism. Get the people to focus on that while neoliberalism whirls away in the background, undisturbed.
Is that someone's name? Why have you given it two capital letters?
'Non sequitur' is the new 'strawman' isn't it. I've yet to see it be used to describe an actual non sequitur.
Yes, you're right. The brazen telling of lies is a common tactic of despots. One that works especially well on a target audience which cleaves to such obviously false ideology as trickle down economics, and rejects basic science when it conflicts with their world view.That only holds water if you think there's any chance that the departing CEO is going to set about reducing the price of drugs, which is the opposite of his job presumably.. it's not about reality is it, its about crowd-pleasing attempts at having the last word.
He's fucking lost it. But yes let's continue our chat about big pharma.
For months now, as part of the ongoing battle over the future of progressive politics in the United States, members of the liberal center have been warning about what they called the “alt-left,” the alt-right’s supposed mirror image. The term was first used in a Vanity Fair piece by James Walcott in March, in which he claimed there was a “kinship” between the two groups, and proceeded to rattle off a list of its supposed members, all of whom (bar Susan Sarandon) were men.
It should go without saying that the label refers to something that doesn’t exist. This very publication, for instance, was cited by Walcott as one of the alt-left’s “outlets,” despite the fact that we routinely spend our time criticizing Trump and his cronies and are rooted in a longstanding democratic socialist tradition.
The term was always intellectually lazy and dishonest, but veracity was never its point. Rather, it was an evolution of the “Bernie Bro” slur, a way to dismiss left-wing critiques of centrist Democrats by claiming those espousing them were racist, misogynistic, white men, even when they were people of color, women, or both. The insertion of the “alt” label was key — without needing to say a thing, the term drew up an affinity and connection between modern, rebranded white supremacists and those campaigning for universal health care and a higher minimum wage.
In the months that ensued, the epithet and the idea that underwrote it were picked up and used by members of the liberal center as a cudgel against socialists, right up until the events in Charlottesville.
“If the Bernie Bros wanted to make a show of force on behalf of progressive values, Saturday in Charlottesville would be a good time,” wrote Mieke Eoyang, former Ted Kennedy staffer and vice president of the National Security Program at Third Way, a centrist think tank.
One popular liberal Twitter account compared the tiki torch-wielding mob of racists to Bernie Sanders supporters.
Well, the neo-Nazi march in Charlottesville took place, and the same people who some have spent months dismissing as closet racists were on the front line, risking bodily harm to stand up against white supremacy. The International Socialist Organization (ISO) and Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) were part of the counter-protest, and their flags flew high after the alt-right marchers had gone. The DSA started a fundraiser to cover the injuries sustained by those attacked at the event, which has raised $138,000 as of the time of writing. Two of its members were injured in the attack on the protests. So were the family members of a staffer at Truthout, a publication that was critical of Clinton during the 2016 election, and one of whose journalists has featured on the “Trumpian Leftism” Tumblr as a “Bernie Bro” and alt-left member.
Or let’s look at Heather Heyer, the murdered young woman who is so far the only casualty of Saturday’s right-wing attack. Heyer was a committed civil rights activist, whose mother, Susan Bro, said “always had a very strong sense of right and wrong.” She was also a Bernie Sanders supporter.
This is hardly a new development. DSA and other left-wing organizations have been involved in anti-Trump protests, including those against the implementation of Trump’s travel ban. Socialists have been playing important roles in recent protests against police violence. If you go further back, you can find leftists organizing and defeating racists in places like Dubuque, Iowa during the nineties and in other campaigns for over a century.
It is neither tenable or acceptable to smear leftists and progressives who oppose corporate Democrats as analogous to neo-Nazis. While those of us on the Left will continue to battle against the policies of the center — policies we think not only cause harm in the here and now but will do nothing to stem the rise of the Right — we should stand united with those liberals who want to stand with us against racism and hatred.
There are some who are nonetheless clinging to a divisive and false narrative about the Left. The day after the incident, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas wondered if anyone “outside of the alt-left” was “still pretending that “last year’s election was about economic anxiety.” A Daily Kos contributing editor blamed the neo-Nazi march on the “alt-Left,” who “in their drive to smear the ‘impurity’ of Clinton on economic justice issues, excused the racism and bigotry that is Trumpism,” which was “stinging very hard now.” Others made a similar point.