On-Topic Putting blame EVERYWHERE it belongs.

[eastofeden]

Jimmy Dore and Susan Sarandon wanted a Trump Presidency so it would "unite the left"

It hasn't.

In fact...BOTH OF THEM continue to divide the left. Tearing Hillary Clinton down daily...not gonna do the trick...but they already knew that...

 

[bankside]

May I recommend voting wholeheartedly and enthusiastically for corrupt leaders, in preference to fascist leaders.

In support of this recommendation, I would give the example of Italy before WWII vs Italy after WWII. As inept and self-aggrandizing as the post-war history of Italian governance has proved to be, I think it's a damn sight better than Italian governance before and during the war.

I would also suggest that a quick spin with a fascist leader is not an effective remedy to fix a corrupt and flatulent alternative. They are separate problems, and the acute problem has to be dispatched first.

 

[CoolBlue71]

May I recommend voting wholeheartedly and enthusiastically for corrupt leaders, in preference to fascist leaders.

It is nice of you to be kind in offering a recommendation. I disagree with you.

I reject both. And my 2016 general-election votes partly reflected this.

 

[CoolBlue71]

Jimmy Dore and Susan Sarandon wanted a Trump Presidency so it would "unite the left"

It hasn't.

In fact...BOTH OF THEM continue to divide the left. Tearing Hillary Clinton down daily...not gonna do the trick...but they already knew that...

Jimmy Dore and Susan Sarandon both recognized that Election 2016 was, in part, one in which the people did not want establishment leadership in the next [45th] president.

Hillary Clinton personified that.

They both wanted the 45th president of the United States to be Bernie Sanders.

As for dividing the left—or, perhaps you would like to also say, dividing the Democratic Party—there were hints of that for a few years. There was good reason why Barack Obama’s Democratic Party suffered their losses in the midterm elections of 2010 and 2014 and that he was re-elected with reduced support in 2012. (Re-elected U.S. presidents historically gain. This will happens in 2020 should it result in re-election for Donald Trump.) But, with the Democratic presidential primaries of 2016, with however much of it one trusted to be legit, there was the big hint right there in the exit polls: Bernie carried 17–29 voters with at least 70 percent nationwide; Hillary was at that level nationally with 65+ voters. The 18–29 voters are, in general elections, the base voting-age for Democrats. (18–29 was the only age group carried in 2004 by John Kerry.)

Divide is not the problem. Divide is the current state. What is the problem is both direction and control. Direction for what this political party is about. Its identity. Control as to who has power.

 

[CoolBlue71]

I don't give a damn if you join in or not. If you would like to continue helping people like Trump into office..please...go ahead and do so....you have free will....use it....

I won't help...but you can....and then please do enjoy your Supreme Court. I suspect you would STILL bitch about and blame Hillary even if you voted Republican and she was dead.

As of this point, August 25, 2017, at about 12:00 p.m. ET, Hillary Clinton has still not held herself responsible for having lost the 2016 United States presidential election to Donald Trump.

On Election Night 2008, when he delivered his concession speech after 11:00 p.m. ET, John McCain held himself accountable and apologized to all for whatever level and details of blame were assigned to him.

Hillary Clinton is irresponsible.

She does not earn respect.

At this point, Hillary Clinton is a cult leader. And she is damaging to the Democratic Party.

 

[cocksucker4use]

I am well versed in understanding the English language, sufficient to know when a commentator wants to change the narrative from Trump, to Hillary Clinton....for they are part of the standard tactics of the Republican Party's propaganda machine.

The Republican Party must be suffering with embarrassment that their propagandists continue to focus on the flaws of the election loser, rather than the clown performing daily at the WH...but he's a Republican.

Agree. The only people whining about Hillary losing are the Trumpettes. If they blame the totally documented and justified push back on fucking Crazy Clown on the bitter losers, then maybe they, like POTUS can avoid reality.

 

[TickTockMan]

Agree. The only people whining about Hillary losing are the Trumpettes. If they blame the totally documented and justified push back on fucking Crazy Clown on the bitter losers, then maybe they, like POTUS can avoid reality.

You guys are so intellectually dishonest it is hilarious.

 

[NotHardUp1]

The right doesn't have to accomplish anything nor defeat the left when the left is all too happy to destroy itself.

 

[CoolBlue71]

The right doesn't have to accomplish anything nor defeat the left when the left is all too happy to destroy itself.

The actual left has as its No. 1 enemy the fake left (corporate Democratic Party establishment, the DNC, and their allies). So, this should not be difficult to understand.

 

[luckynumbah7]

The actual left has as its No. 1 enemy the fake left (corporate Democratic Party establishment, the DNC, and their allies). So, this should not be difficult to understand.

Sorry sweetheart, the great bulk of the left doesn't give much of a fuck about the political actions of fringes who hold little-to-no-power. They come to the fore once in a blue moon and every three or so months there'll be some hand wringing and a few politicians pointing to 'em because it's easier to herd the central/right people when you can use the 'nastier' option to wriggle out concessions of the "Just think, you could be dealing with those people" kind. What 'the left' tends to care about are the greedy little buggers who're holding power and drawing a paycheck in excess amounts now. Along with healthcare and other intersectional issues. None of which are limited to Democrats.

And is it me or did you change your tune way-back-when? I seem to remember I didn't consider you anywhere on the left by any means.

 

[CoolBlue71]

Sorry sweetheart, the great bulk of the left doesn't give much of a fuck about the political actions of fringes who hold little-to-no-power.

…

Right now, the Democratic Party—with their corporate and corrupt establishment, their rigging of the 2016 presidential primaries, their full control of only around five state houses—has “little-to-no-power.”

Perhaps you think this is healthy.

So…

Keep defending the status quo!

 

[luckynumbah7]

Right now, the Democratic Party—with their corporate and corrupt establishment, their rigging of the 2016 presidential primaries, their full control of only around five state houses—has “little-to-no-power.”

Perhaps you think this is healthy.

So…

Keep defending the status quo!

And not a peep about any of the matters I actually wrote on. Nor was there a defense of any kind located within that paragraph.

I've been keeping a rough tally of people's stated assumptions to other's descriptions of politic's actions. It's....interesting.

My question still stands, however. My brain is saying you weren't far left when you started. It doubts you're far left now, you're misstating (at best) a small fraction of the left's talking points yourself while ignoring most of the rest of them. In fact, my brain largely suspects you're taking the piss, with perhaps a handful of sand-grains floating around as truth.

Because in no way is 'the left's' main goal is fighting '....the left'. The goal is figuring out how to implement and discuss strategy for getting the goods. Occasionally parts in one group use parts of the same group to scare their opponents into concession. That last bit is human nature and not confined to politics at all.

What that doesn't state is that the left has always (or even merely recently-the timing qualifier doesn't matter) been fighting the left as its main political goal. Numbah One Enemy, I believe you said. Which was your claim, and I'd sorely like you to back it up. Right now is perfect for the linkage that the Nebulous Left's Existence is chiefly and firstly concerned with eating its own tail.

The actual left has as its No. 1 enemy the fake left (corporate Democratic Party establishment, the DNC, and their allies). So, this should not be difficult to understand.

That post there.

 

[CoolBlue71]

…


The goal is figuring out how to implement and discuss strategy for getting the goods. …

Corporate Democrats—the ones you figure are part of the left (they’re not)—have been destructive to the Democratic Party.

They have been running the party since around the 1980s.

I do not trust them to continue running the Democratic Party.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Corporate Democrats—the ones you figure are part of the left (they’re not)—have been destructive to the Democratic Party.

They have been running the party since around the 1980s.

I do not trust them to continue running the Democratic Party.

You answered nothing I asked you. Try again.

You might also look into the conception of 'purity tests' - it ain't only for religion. As opposed to just outright lieing in politics. Which isn't quite the same thing, although they do certainly meet in the middle eventually.

AHA- was it Libertarian? Warmer, colder....?

 

[CoolBlue71]

You answered nothing I asked you. Try again.

Try again?

I will let you be the one who does that.

You did not ask a question. (Meaning, there were no question marks.)

I did state that I do not trust the corporate Democrats. Those corporate Democrats are not the real left; they can be on the left for some social issues; they are on the right for economics, military, and national security—just like the Republican Party. In fact, you may be interested in the following…


http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision...d-moderate-republican-1980s/story?id=17973080

 

[luckynumbah7]

Try again?

I will let you be the one who does that.

You did not ask a question. (Meaning, there were no question marks.)

I did state that I do not trust the corporate Democrats. Those corporate Democrats are not the real left; they can be on the left for some social issues; they are on the right for economics, military, and national security—just like the Republican Party. In fact, you may be interested in the following…


http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision...d-moderate-republican-1980s/story?id=17973080

Yes. Try again. When you make a claim that 'The left's main goal is fighting the left' you really have to back it up further than 'Some of the people that make up the groups in 'the left' don't like each other." I particularly want proof that the left as a group are campaigning (as the number one enemy and all) to argue with people also in the group who are pushing for the same political goals.

In that vein, I want to know why I remember you. You argue like the us's version of a libertarian, for the most part. There's a couple difference but I don't know you well enough to pick them apart. I definitely remember you, however. I just can't remember how I remember; perhaps you could enlighten me?

You seem very keen on purity tests for how to campaign. I'm beginning to wonder if some of that isn't because you've failed yourself and the prospect of failure is ...well. Few people cherish it.

-And I saw the headline of the video. I don't disagree. That still doesn't back up your 'number one enemy' declaration. I'm not sure how you conceptualize that it does. Definitions are contextual, after all. They're so contextual that I could point to Europe's 'the left' and call them 'the right' and be 'correct', insofar as that goes, because for the goals 'the left' are generally agreed upon to strive for aren't nearly there yet in the 'real world'.

 

[luckynumbah7]

-And I saw the headline of the video. I don't disagree. That still doesn't back up your 'number one enemy' declaration. I'm not sure how you conceptualize that it does. Definitions are contextual, after all. They're so contextual that I could point to Europe's 'the left' and call them 'the right' and be 'correct', insofar as that goes, because for the goals 'the left' are generally agreed upon to strive for aren't nearly there yet in the 'real world'.

Call me suspicious, but I'm (generally speaking) only against 'infighting' when there's literally nazi's at the door. But I'm also, by the same token, not gonna pretend that this 'false left' is in an actual gigantic infight that's in progression (as opposed to some rather depressed bitchiness from all and sundry combined with a refusal from several of those with excess funds to give their private[STRIKE] bank accounts[/STRIKE] politics at least a nudge toward progression. All political progression has gone down the tubes, businesses and corporations are quite a bit of the issue; but that's not translatable to infighting. We haven't reached actual [STRIKE]in[/STRIKE]fighting yet. I don't believe so, anyway, heavens no. Not nearly bloody enough for that to have occurred yet.

It looks no larger to me now than it did years ago. (the vocal left. For the record, the right seems no larger either. Not when you get right down to it.) The vocality is a smidge louder, but I haven't had the impression that the numbers changed.

 

[CoolBlue71]

Yes. Try again. When you make a claim that 'The left's main goal is fighting the left' …

I did not write that. I wrote that the corporate Democrats, while they are more on the left than the right on social issues (for what they actually argue for or defend—when they figure it is safe for them to do so or to use those issues as Democratic Party Talking Points)—are not the true left.

Just because a person generally votes Democratic does not automatically mean he is truly on the left.

In that vein, I want to know why I remember you. You argue like the us's version of a libertarian, for the most part. There's a couple difference but I don't know you well enough to pick them apart.

This is a forum where people are anonymous. Please keep that in mind.

 

[bankside]

The actual left has as its No. 1 enemy the fake left (corporate Democratic Party establishment, the DNC, and their allies). So, this should not be difficult to understand.

There has always been an alliance between the left fringe and the right fringe which demonises the moderates in the middle. it's like each side needs the other to be strong. It's perverse.

<cough>molotov ribbentrop </cough>

 

[luckynumbah7]

I did not write that.

The actual left has as its No. 1 enemy the fake left (corporate Democratic Party establishment, the DNC, and their allies). So, this should not be difficult to understand.

It's right there. Surely you're aware that by taking a political block in a two-party system and separating each side in your mind, it does not mean that separation of espoused beliefs is an actual reality on the scale that you believe it to be?

I'm asking for why you believe that. I'm not looking for one-off titles I agree with. I'm looking for statistics, studies. You're claiming that the left's main goal is fighting the other half of the left. So yes, I'm going to demand statistics and studies and articles that reference these great schisms of ours with the historical stage as a comparison. Because so far I haven't connected the discontent of a political movement that isn't greatly inept to purity-crashing half the general belief system over tactics.

This is a forum where people are anonymous. Please keep that in mind.

Oh, you're still anonymous. Your anonymity will prevail; I just want to put your current speech and actions in context. Your nom de plume is in no danger; I just wanna see what you've written under it and it's easier to ask than to hunt it down myself. I asked because you seem awfully concerned about insisting purity checks are the left's main fight. Not something I hear on the left terribly often because it's (so far) a fringe-limited opinion and it doesn't work on most people when you spell it out like that because it needs tiny populations, relatively speaking, to be 'believable'.

Note that I didn't say the corporations and pay-as-you-go politicians aren't the problem. They are. But you don't deal with any sort of problem by demanding purity tests. What you do is, you hold them to their word.