MightyTibberton
Well-Known Member
And he's given Sherif David Clarke a job.
What stupid shit has Trump done today?
- Thread starter Yossarian
- Start date
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
Much of the liberal left appear to be in hysterical over-reach mode. Take CNN. Their presenters refer glibly in passing to the 'election being hacked'. But the election wasn't hacked despite the millions spent trying to prove it was. CNN also hosts debates, featuring six (paid for presumably) talking heads, who are then replaced throughout the evening by another six talking heads.
Regardless of the panel each and every 'discussion' seems to begin with "IF...". 'If Trump did this, what are the consequences'? Generally the consequences it is agreed will be very serious - for Trump. When there is some form of dissent or even departure from the narrative just arrived at, the presenter cannot, and makes no effort to hide her dissatisfaction. (Jon Snow and Matt Frei tend to respond in a similar manner on C4).
Their spoon fed diet consists almost entirely of tiny gloops of unverifiable 'intel' from unnamed spooks. Now and again in order to show cross party support for the CNN agenda, John McCain, who hates Trump with a passion, is wheeled out as the authentic voice of the Republican base. But of course Trump isn't really a Republican. He defeated both parties in running and winning. He has however a base. And as one ex CIA operative told C4 News today the base is sticking with him and "will defend him with guns if necessary." (He was then cut off).
The reason the self-styled 'progressives' lost the election is that they refused to listen to their former constituency. They're still not listening. A mirror image of the Left in Europe. It is of course early days yet, but history shows there will be a high price paid for such high-handedness eventually. You'd like to think that the seriously smug would be the first ones to cop it. But of course they will have all bailed or switched sides by then.
Ax^
Silly Rabbit
was it not the cunt himself that said the election had been manipulated as if it was correct he would of won the popular vote and not just the electoral college
CRI
Registered Chooser
CRI
Registered Chooser
No harm in making your intentions clear, as Congresswoman Maxine Waters has from the day he took office.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
gifs always make awkward realities go away
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
that throughout europe and the USA the working classes have been squeezed to breaking point. The credit goes to those who didn't vote le pen or macron, trump or clinton. Niether cholera nor plague.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
and corbyn for number 10 (in the absence of the glorious day obvs)
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
I'm not voting labour, ever. I just want to see the shit fit the est, throws if by some miracle he does get in (its not going to happen)
CRI
Registered Chooser
Indeed. Trump and his team are masters of projection - accuse whoever you see as your enemy of exactly what you and your pals are doing. Also, "hacking" has become a slipping shorthand for "interfered with," and there's ample evidence of people who wanted to vote not being able to and some that did finding their votes not counted. Whether it was voter suppression measures, particularly in working class and Black Democratic Party voting districts (e.g. reducing polling places and opening hours to make it harder for people to vote, intimidation from Trump supporters, often openly armed, etc.) or out of date and faulty voting machines - surprise surprise, in districts that traditionally vote Dem (where GOP legislatures vetoed funds to upgrade), especially in critical states like Michigan, Wisconson, Colorado and North Carolina.was it not the cunt himself that said the election had been manipulated as if it was correct he would of won the popular vote and not just the electoral college
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
I can skip my theology group for a few weeks on the back of that.
As for bannon, always amuses me that conspiracists (many of whom got duped by Trump) go on about satanist symbology at awards ceromonies, films etc. and say it's PROOFS of a satanic conspiracy, but when Bannon said Satan is good - not a peep. mug cunts.
MightyTibberton
Well-Known Member
As I posted up the thread that Sherif David Clarke had been given a job I must now post that that's now been denied...
He has reportedly (WH Source - they seem fine with anon sources when they're leaking what they want to leak) threatened to leave NATO again. To be honest, I reckon that'll prove to be one of those "I'm leaving NAFTA!" "I'll declare China a currency manipulator!" attention-seeking/distraction things.
He has reportedly (WH Source - they seem fine with anon sources when they're leaking what they want to leak) threatened to leave NATO again. To be honest, I reckon that'll prove to be one of those "I'm leaving NAFTA!" "I'll declare China a currency manipulator!" attention-seeking/distraction things.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
I'm no fan of NATO or anything, but just thinking on teir terms for a minute. Has nobody told him how much the marshall plan cost and how europe near enough fell to cahmyanism without american intervention? You'd think someone might have pointed out these things
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
And that relates to better-than-average-income white Americans electing a populist buffoon..... how?
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
you left a sentence or two out. Thats usually called selective quoting
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Miss Caphat
I want it that way
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
People who had medical cover for condition that are treatable are losing that coverage.
People will die.
"Liberals" upset on social media will often know someone who will be in a life of pain or even die because of the changes Trump has brought in.
But the "left" here would rather those people die than "liberal" get credit for something. These are not serious people engaged in a real world struggle. For much of Urban 75's politics posters its all more a roll playing game. They play act the hardline revolutionary in a consequence free environment untroubled by the compromises necessary to change the world and instead dreaming narcissistic dreams of fantasy revolutions and perfect outcomes that can never really be.
Reality and the horrible mess of life is too complex for them.
And in the real world people die.
Its all just a game to them.
MightyTibberton
Well-Known Member
Leeds United man myself.
But that's why I think it's probably a distraction thing. Does he even have that authority? Presumably this is a treaty - more likely a load of treaties and legistlation - signed by or somehow approved of by Congress...
And, as if by magic...
Big news breaks, that a Special Prosecutor has been appointed in the Russia investigation. . .
CRI
Registered Chooser
About time!
Raheem
Well-Known Member
The thing about this analogy is that "neither" illusory when it comes to elections. You can't actually make that choice. The nearest you can get is "I don't care which".
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
I don't speak french but I assumed their was some witticism or echo of french political slogans of the past that I missed. But no, the nearest you can get is 'I want niether'. Highest french spoiled ballot on record as I recall.
CRI
Registered Chooser
Well yes - American politics is an intellectual exercise for some, but a genuine matter of life and death for others.
And there's the whole business about how right wing people in America use "liberal" as a slur for anyone left of centre (e.g. supporters of Clinton, Sanders or Stein) and left wing people in the UK use "liberal" as a slur for anyone a hairsbreadth to the right of where they are. Very quaint.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Feralhadley of course will now be able to tell us all about what he's done, how he has arrived at his thinking. Or maybe another homily about how he grew up tough once. Yeah, this is the stuff that got the last thread closed down.
Compromises. There is no compromise with power, Machiavelli knew this. Why on earth should it be granted from a position of power unless the hand is forced? That would of course mean things like working class militancy and not voting clegg. But y'know, everyone else is just cosplaying- you really are a plum. North of 40k pa deffo
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
One of the biggest... er... demonizers of 'liberal' in the US, is.... Ann Coulter.
Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America: Ann Coulter: 9780307353498: Books - Amazon.ca
Ann; plus various people here at U75.
Politics certainly makes for strange bedfellows!
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
deffo not redbaiting again ehOne of the biggest... er... demonizers of 'liberal' in the US, is.... Ann Coulter.
Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America: Ann Coulter: 9780307353498: Books - Amazon.ca
Ann; plus various people here at U75.
Politics certainly makes for strange bedfellows!
Liberal has, at first sight, so clear a political meaning that some of its further associations are puzzling. Yet the political meaning is comparatively modern, and much of the interesting history of the word is earlier. It began in a specific social distinction, to refer to a class of free men as distinct from others who were not free. It came into English in C14, from fw liberal, oF,liberalis, L, rw liber, L – free man. In its use in liberal arts – ‘artis liberalis’ (1375) – it was predominantly a class term: the skills and pursuits appropriate, as we should now say, to men of independent means and assured social, as distinct from other skills and pursuits (cf. MECHANICAL) appropriate to a lower class. But there was a significant development of a further sense, in which the pursuits had their own independence: ‘Liberal Sciencis … fre scyencis, as gramer, arte, fisike, astronomye, and otheris’ (1422). Yet as with any term which distinguishes some freemen from others, a tension remained. The cultivated ideal of the liberal arts was matched by the sense ofliberal as generous (‘in giffynge liberal’, 1387), but at the same time this was flanked by the negative sense of ‘unrestrained’. Liberty, though having an early general sense of freedom, had a strong sense from C15 of formal permission or privilege; this survives in the naval phrase liberty boat and, though often not noticed as such, in the conservative phrase liberties of the subject, where liberty has no modern sense but the old sense of certain rights granted within an unquestionable subjection to a particular sovereignty. The other word for such a formal right was licence, and the play of feeling, towards the sense of ‘unrestrained’, can be clearly seen in the development, from C16, oflicentious. Liberal, as well as being widely used in the stock phrase lyberal arbytre (C15) — free will, was close to licentious in such uses as Shakespeare’s
Who hath indeed most like a liberall villaine
Confest the vile encounters they have had.
(Much Ado About Nothing, IV, i)
A weaker but related form of this sense is clear in the development, from 1C18, of the sense of ‘not rigorous’, which could be taken either as ‘not harsh’ or as ‘not disciplined’.
The affirmation of liberal, in a social context quite different from that of a special class of free men, came mainly in 1C18 and eC19, following the strong general sense of Liberty from mC17. It was used in the sense of ‘open-minded’, and thence of ‘unorthodox’, from 1C18: ‘liberal opinions’ (Gibbon, 1781). The adjective is very clear in a political sense in an example from 1801: ‘the extinction of every vestige of freedom, and of every liberal idea with which they are associated’. This led to the formation of the noun as a political term, proudly and even defiantly announced in the periodical title,The Liberal (1822). But, as often since, this term for an unorthodox political opinion was given, by its enemies, a foreign flavour. There was talk of the ‘Ultras’ and ‘Liberals’ of Paris in 1820, and some early uses were in a foreign form: Liberales (Southey, 1816); Liberaux(Scott, 1826). The term was applied in this sense as a nickname to advanced Whigs and Radicals by their opponents; it was then consciously adopted and within a generation was powerful and in its turn orthodox.
pt1
Similar threads
- Poll
