I think the answer is simple. Where once you had liberals who were Democrats, today you have Democrats who call themselves liberals but aren't really. It's party over principle. If you notice all those other things you mentioned, the free speech there didn't really hurt the Democrat Party, and by defending it, they could signal their vir…
I think the answer is simple. Where once you had liberals who were Democrats, today you have Democrats who call themselves liberals but aren't really. It's party over principle. If you notice all those other things you mentioned, the free speech there didn't really hurt the Democrat Party, and by defending it, they could signal their virtuousness. But today, all the things being censored, are a danger to the Uniparty in general, but the Democrat Party in particular. So now they rationalize curtailing "free speech rights" any way they can.
In short, you're confused because you assume people in parties have principles. They don't, other than the perpetuation of party power. That's it.
The so-called #resistance movement broke the Democrats' brains. Remember when Trump was elected and everyone decided they had to "resist" at all costs, which began with weeks of around-the-clock protests at Trump Tower here in NYC? When a young, newly-minted #resistance protestor was confronted with "what are you protesting? Donald Trump, you know, actually won the election," they'd respond "do you expect us to just accept it?" #Resistance became so all-encompassing that the newer Star Wars movies actually rebranded the Rebellion the Resistance.
Now, resistance means accepting marching orders from @BrooklynDadDefiant or MSNBC or NPR, or whatever your choice of propaganda is. It's all-party, zero-principles, zero acknowledging any evidence of things that don't help your party, etc., even if it means the Democratic Party shifting to top-down, capital-friendly policies more in line with the old Republican Party and aligning with the Military Industrial Complex, the Medical Industrial Complex and the Censorship Industrial Complex, whole-hog.
You have to wonder if what the #resistance is resisting is reality. (Scroll through Keith Olbermann's Twitter feed for 8 seconds for proof from patient zero.)
I was a staunch Democrat who absolutely REFUSED to vote for Hillary, so I was kicked out of the "club." And I was further ostracized when I laughed my ass off when Hillary lost! Seriously, I was asked to leave the bar I was at watching the election returns because my laughter was "triggering." 😂
I agree with you that it was Trump's defeat of Hillary that was the straw that broke the camel's back. It was HER turn, dammit, and when she lost (after running an abysmally poor campaign) the Leftists, led by the media, which lost all semblance of impartially during her husband's administration, just went insane, IMHO!
And Trump made it very easy to go insane. He's just a distasteful character and I suspect it's him personally, not his "positions", that make him so distasteful to the left and fog whatever brains they have.
More distasteful than Hillary Clinton? I'm a proud eastern elite liberal and I became a Trump supporter the minute he rode down the escalator. A truth that few can stomach is that Donald Trump was and still is a liberal Democrat. The only reason he's a Republican is that the GOP was so weak and bereft that he was able to overrun its leadership before they knew what hit them. Today "liberal" has become an identity as opposed to an ideology. Those of us who were paying attention saw the Obama White House as nothing more than Bush's 3rd (and 4th) terms. He continued the same neocon policies -- endless wars, expanded state security apparatus, open borders, and free trade -- at the expense of the American middle class, and co-opted the language and organizing of the far left to the cause. The Clinton takedown of Bernie in the 2016 primaries was the last straw for me. I'm still a liberal, and I'm still supporting a big-spending, peace-loving, US labor-protecting, former US President against a corrupt cabal of corporate boardrooms, government agencies, and state-run media.
I’m not opposed to much of what you say, but liberal Democrats don’t call for the reinstatement of the death penalty against five youths who had not yet gone to trial. Nor do they restrict tenants in their rental properties to white people. But I will always support the notion that Trump’s election may have spared the world some of the wars that Hillary Clinton was drooling to involve the country in.
Check out todays July 13th interview on Aaron Mate's Pushback podcast. Plenty of backstory of years preparing for this proxy war. Biden is in the middle of it when he was vice president.
No new wars. Reason Magazine posted during the primary season that, next to Bernie Sanders, Trump was by a large margin the most dove-ish among the candidates. He lived up to that.
I have uuuge issues with both Trump and Hillary (spits), but as you say, the greatest hope that HUMANITY has to avoid WWIII is another Trump term. "biden", who is not in charge, and who is in thrall to the MIC and the Deep State - wants to start a war ON Russia. That's because they think that they can 'win' that war, and by 'win' they mean that America will 'only' lose 20 to 30 million people but Russia, and of course, China, will be gone. This is what maniacs like Keith Payne call, "Victory!"
I voted for neither in 2016. I did vote for Trump in 2020, but after Russiagate, "mostly peaceful" arson, murder, terror, deep state government censorship, how is one to trust a unipartier on anything?
I do like Rand Paul, who keeps saying the hard stuff, but no-one pays him any mind.
Liberals are, and always have been, the primary carriers of 'white guilt'. Inject a racial component into any argument and they'll robotically side with the most melanin regardless of the evidence.
"call for the reinstatement of the death penalty against five youths who had not yet gone to trial. Nor do they restrict tenants in their rental properties to white people. "
Are you sure this is an accurate characterization of events? Did you hear that Trump is a Russian Spy?
“Donald Trump’s $85,000 ad campaign calling to reinstate the death penalty in 1989 became notorious in light of the Central Park Five case.
The ad was placed in four New York papers, including The New York Times, The Daily News, The New York Post and New York Newsday on May 1, 1989, less than two weeks after the brutal rape and assault of Trisha Meili on April 19, 1989.”
I lived in Manhattan then and there was no ambiguity about the intentions.
This was especially odious in view of the fact that the boys were bullied into confessing by corrupt police and were in fact innocent.
There is ambiguity in the discrimination case against Fred and Donald. But I feel secure in stating what every progressive New Yorker knew, minorities weren’t welcome at Trump properties. It’s far more than hearsay.
So Trump placed the ad and then some people later said he wanted to execute, without trial, these five people?
There is ambiguity here also is my only point. Meanwhile it is parroted as fact that he was some kind of racist landlord (and a Russian Spy who like having hookers pee on him. Totally happened).
In the absence of evidence, I suspect most of us will continue to believe the pee tape is bullshit. The problem Trump has here is that it is totally believable that he would have hookers pee on each other in a bed slept in by Obama; this is not inconsistent with his personality. But that sure as hell doesn't make it true, just plausible. The Central Park 5 crap with Trump was not bullshit. It matters not whether he is a racist. He seized the opportunity to call attention to himself in a volatile environment. That is Trump being Trump. Had the initial public sentiment favored the accused, Trump would have run full-page ads decrying police and prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecutors (as they and the cops often/usually are) were the true villains.
Was it known within two weeks of the rape that the boys had been bullied into confessing by corrupt police and were in fact innocent, or did that fact come out later? I don't live in NY, but I remember that it was quite shocking when the allegations of police coercion came out. If I had heard that five boys had raped a woman and confessed, I would probably be jazzed to put an ad in the paper saying we should bring back the death penalty, too. Of course, once the truth came to light, my opinion with regards to the boys would change. My opinion with regards to what the penalty should be for gang rape would remain the same.
The boys' were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The information they volunteered to detectives (and witnesses) early in the investigation was actually proof that they were guilty, because what they said regarding a rape and items which were stolen from the victim were facts not known to investigators at the time, but only later were corroborated by the victim's physical examination and by evidence found at the scene, on the boys, their clothing, and in their homes. A multi-racial jury came to a solid verdict after a lengthy trial. The later "not guilty" determination was made on purely technical grounds. The declaration of "innocence" is a myth manufactured by the media and perpetuated by a biased documentary.
First, it has nothing to do with what anyone was aware of, or what anyone might believe. It was a matter of due process, guaranteed by the constitution.
And second, I am opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances. There are no exceptions for me. And to answer what might fairly be your next question, it’s not because I have sympathy for killers, but because it is beneath my dignity to take a human life. If Charles Manson had hanged himself in prison I would not have cried a tear, but I am not an instrument of death.
People keep getting on Donald Trump for the restrictions, but seem to forget that he was a teenager at the time. It's not like he was the person setting the rules, or even enforcing them, he was just the boss's son on a summer job, but Hillary kept harping on that like it was somehow his doing. Meanwhile "something something super predators who must be brought to heel" was during her co-Presidency.
Exactly. Trump the anti-war guy is the greatest contradiction I see. 100% certain Trump WOULD NOT BE SENDING CLUSTER BOMBS to Ukraine. And yet the "traditional" lefty ant-war types are nowhere to be found. Total insanity. The establishment dems are totally coopted by the MIC as are the rhinos. Some SICK s-h-eye-t.
There's probably quite a bit of truth in what you say - Trump is a Democrat and the Republicans are weak. I think run of the mill Republicans have been looking for someone who loves this country and will try to do right by it for decades now, and Trump said, "You've tried all the rest and see where it got you. What do you have to lose?" So people took a chance.
Imagine what would happen if the Republicans actually ran a conservative in the vein of Trump? Trump would be toast. Instead, they gave us Bush #6 (DeSantis). So lots of folks are going to stick with the guy who did what he said he'd do.
Charles, you certainly have the right to question the existence of the Electoral College, but it yet remains and represents a rather elegant resolution of some very thorny underlying questions.
Please note, sir, that every, at least to my knowledge, "pure" democracy in history has devolved into an oligarchical, extremely violent tyranny given the inevitable collision between freedom and governance.
Why would you prefer a system that makes 47 or 48 states non-existent? Doing away with the electoral college would put the election solely in the hands of California and New York. Places like Vermont and Alaska would cease to exist as far as politics goes and all the money that entails. This country is immense, with a vast array of industries, views, religions and cultures. Our Electoral College allows all those states to have a say in the outcome of the election. We are a country in name but we are individual states in practice and each state gets a say in the election.
The Electoral College already puts the presidential election in the hands of a few states. States with few electoral votes or those that are reliably red or blue. That leaves the election in the hands of a few swing states. As it now the vote of a Republican in a blue state or a Democrat in a red state basically don’t count. If we had a nationwide popular vote all of the Democrats in red states or Republicans in blue state could pool their votes. Candidates might campaign all over the country instead of only in a few swing states.
The conservative would get crushed before he was out of the gate. Remember what happened to Ted Cruz when he was the last man standing in 2016? He's a smart guy and an expert debater and Trump easily carved him up. Now they're looking at DeSantis, and if he ever confronts Trump the same will happen to him. Trump's weakness? Age. So far he's held it together but, in the words of Charles Barkley, "Father Time is undefeated".
yeah the interesting thing that came of that is that in doing so Trump wove a lot, not all, of their themes to his core concepts. and of course what we found out is the Republicans never really believed in any of those things they had been saying for decades.
Wow! This is an amazing viewpoint! I stopped being a Republican for roughly the same reasons. At the same point as you, and for the same reasons, I came to the conclusion neither party was speaking for their constitutes. I don't like the machine behind both parties that continues this relentless attack on The Peope and I will join with any group of Ludites willing to break it! Thank you for your honesty.
I actually don't know Trump's position on abortion (was it to reverse rose or have it actually outlawed - big difference), but to clarify, sending it back to the states is not banning it. For those who find this as serious an issue as they make out, moving to a state that allows it is a relatively easy solution...thus the beauty of Federalism.
So women just need to move to have bodily autonomy? Howsabout states that ban men from getting boner pills? Should men 'just move' if they want to be full citizens? No male is EVER going to face this kind of decision and you're a monster to demand that women leave their homes.
As for Trump's position on abortion, he certainly appointed only people who want to ban abortion and he ran in the political party that makes abortion bans THE key policy. There is no good reason for you to pretend ignorance on this issue. You obviously hate women and want us locked out of public life entirely but are too much of a fucking coward to actually SAY that, a trait you share with Confessed Rapist and Woman-Hater Matt Taibbi.
Karen, I would engage you in this, had you demonstrated some control over your emotions which lead you to put assertions in my post that do not exist. Not to mention being laden with false equivalencies, ad hominem attacks, and general troll behavior.
As it stands, I know where this "conversation" would go and I'm not interested. Demonstrate some objectivity and I'm happy to respond with substance.
Who did Matt Taibbi confess to raping? I’m a subscriber and have been reading Matt (and reading about him) for many years, long before he began publishing on Substack. The Rolling Stone years. I’ve never heard this accusation. Was this a big story I missed? Or should I say, was this a Big Story I Missed?
Does bodily autonomy include deciding whether or not to have unprotected sex? Becoming pregnant (aside from extremely rare cases of rape) isn't the equivalent of getting struck by a bolt of lightning.
MEN cause pregnancy. If you don’t like abortion get a vasectomy or, better because you’re obviously a fan of Confessed Rapist Matt Taibbi, leave all women alone.
Anna Khachiyan from the Red Scare pod put her finger on this 2-3 years back now, in identifying most of the anger at Trump to be almost totally aesthetic. Trump the candidate backed some traditionally liberal/left policies like reshoring and insurance and infrastructure (Greenwald loves to point this out).
It was Trump's personality and character and style that people found repellent, and used that as an excuse to use plenty of official lies about him being a Russian double agent, etc., to try to take him down. Ironically, many of the pundits that most hate Trump became a mirror image of his "ass hole right here on my face, take a look" persona, sometimes to an even greater degree!
My favorite was how Candidate Obama pledged to halt the illegal NSA spying on Americans, then President Obama expanded it. And also expanded the use of killer robot planes, even to assassinate American citizens. Ask a current Democrat to even try to defend any of that shit, and a room quickly falls silent.
I think it most interesting that Obama dismissed Russia as a threat with the one liner "The 80's want their foreign policy back" and the left as well as the media went wild. Trump wins and all of a sudden Russia is the biggest threat to democracy in our lifetime.
I have sometimes taken to calling Obama "Black Jesus" to Democrat types who have forgotten their liberal ideals. One even tried out "racism!" on me. I noted that Dallas radio host Randy Galloway called the white, red-haired Cowboys coach Jason Garrett "Red Jesus" and no one ever accused him or any kind of -ism, not religious, not race, not nothing. Red Jesus was just a funny joke. Black Jesus is serious shit, because the believers were sniffing their own farts like on that South Park episode.
Yes! All the liberals protesting the invasion of Iraq under Bush went silent once Obama was in the White House. So much for principle. Now that Michelle loves Bush, his war crimes are forgotten. Hell, they even love Darth Vader Cheney and his fascist daughter now.
They gave themselves away when that infamous sign showed up at the pink hat march stating “if Hillary were president, we’d be at brunch.” They don’t give a shit what Washington does around the world or even domestically as long as the person committing the crimes does so with panache. Look what Obama did to civil liberties. They don’t care.
Trust me when I tell you the real left has not changed during all this insanity. We’ve been calling these fools out all along, but our voices are not amplified by the corrupt media.
No ,people loved the fact he was an eloquent negro. One that spoke of all things Marxist. We have an eloquent negro too. Thomas Sowell. I'd love to see a conversation between those two.
No, for me it was claiming Mexican immigrants, my former students and their families, were rapists and drug dealers, claiming falsely that Muslims celebrated in NJ on 9/11, promoting the lie that Obama was not born in the US, saying white supremacists were fine people, saying the press was the enemy of the people just like Hitler did, trying to strongarm Zelensky into looking for dirt in his political opponent, monetizing the office of the presidency.
Because people like to watch cruelty, and Trump was a master at lopping off someone's head with the "You're fired!" sword each and every week. He was perfect for reality teevee, because he knew from pro wrestling how to work the audience.
He was only repellent when he exposed the elites and couldn't be controlled. He was a money maker, so who cares about any of the rest of it? The elite still behave that way... Roman Polanski, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chelsea's husband... I could create quite a list.
Because he was playing a character-or so we thought, on TV. It turns out that he was playing himself naturally. His TV show was a hit b/c it played to the WWE fan demographic-gauche, in your face, no nuance or deeper explanation required. That appeals to a certain segment of American society that cuts across ethnic lines.
I only ever saw clips. I don't watch TV now for over 20 years. I do youtube and some other free streaming services. I thought the show was cruel, morally degraded and sick.
Never watched his tv show. I don’t find it entertaining to watch people being humiliated. I do find it strange that he apparently loved to say “you’re fired” on his show but didn’t have the guts to do it in real life. He fired people via tweet or press conference or sent someone else to do the dirty work. Typically of a bully
I don't think Trump ever changed, but his coverage in the media sure did. If you look at old stories about him, he really was not portrayed as a monster, or a POS. That only changed when they finally realised, "OMG. He might actually take power." It was then that the literal hate propaganda went on full blast.
The hate we see for him now is a tribute to the power of propaganda.
I've seen some old Letterman episodes from way back in which he playfully eggs Trump on to run for president. No signs from Letterman or the cheering audience that they thought he was some kind of monster.
Bill, you and Literally Mussolini are 100% on it. Anyone who was at least a teenager in the 80s saw Trump as a flamboyant, fun, kind of ridiculous, totally harmless blowhard. People born in the 90s never saw that guy, they only have seen the MAGA hero/defender or the evil Russian spy rapist, depending on where they consume their media.
I think the coverage changed when his ambitions did. It's one thing to be a reality TV celeb, it's another to be president. Everyone would get treated differently by the media if they pivoted from innocuous entertainer to most powerful politician in the country. He wasn't ranting about Mexicans or trying to steal elections when he was on The Apprentice.
This is one of the more incisive observations I have seen someone make in this comments section over the years. Focus and inquisitiveness are indeed characteristics that many “regular” people do not have-but it doesn’t make them moral inferiors. Frustrating to talk politics with-absolutely!
Come on! You think coke-addled GW Bush was any better? Or did you actually like seeing him strut around a US warship's deck in a borrowed flight suit with his crotch sticking out at you while mumbling idiotic jingoistic taglines? You folks really need to check your prior positions against your current ones.
Apparently coke is popular in the White House even to this day. I was originally a supporter of the Bush family being from Texas, but the more I looked into 9-11 and the military industrial complex, the more sick to my stomach I got. Except for Trump, every President since World War II has been a Neocon and has placed the young men of this country in peril.
It's not just American young men who have been placed in peril as you say, it's million of civilians all over the world who have died, actually killed, by your "young men". And all that for the benefit of the elites, the MIC and the sick aspirations of deep state and your neocons.
Until Americans care about people in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somali, just to name a few. Nothing will change.
Several hundred thousand people on all sides have been killed in the Ukraine, in reality a proxy war ON Russia, but almost no one cares in the US as it is not their "young men" who are dying.
Thank you, Tim, for that awesome reminder of what a gopher looks like when he tries to preen like a peacock. It was better than Benny Hill. Do you think Rove was 100% for or against the codpiece? Trump and Bush 2 both sucked as Presidents, but Bush 2 was FAR worse.
Obviously you know nothing about Trump. Dad and I decided years ago that there is no point in explaining him, nyc or anything else to people who decided he was the savior. It would be laughable if it wasn't so awful.
It was the trigger that exposed already existing policy preferences/tactics. The frog was boiling slowly until Trump was elected. Rather than keep their heads down, the Marxist wing of the democrat party let loose and exposed themselves. Once that happened...they needed to keep it up, or lose.
They realized that Left-Libertarian is a contradiction of terms. It’s not possible to get everyone to behave and march in the way *THEY* want, at least not voluntarily. Noam Chomsky revealed his inner Stalinist about the coof dart. “Deny the antivaxxers groceries” -Chomsky (the so-called “anarcho-syndicalist”). All that’s left is tankie communism. They are top left on the political compass.
Sigghhh.... Can we please try to have intelligent discussion and not resort to worthless tropes? When Iseesomeone use the term fascist, I right away call bs, as they typically have no idea what that means and who is truly practicing it
Exactly. You don't. You are just supporting liberal platitudes and you have no idea what fascism is. Trump and MAGA lean populist, and actually are anti- fascist if anything. And not in the brown shirt way of antifa who misuses that label
I’ll admit that Bernie and Trump are both populist.
But
If you are so put off by the word facist, consider these Trump characteristics. He admires Putin, Orban, MBS, Duterte. He repeatedly called the press the enemy of the people. No matter what you think of the press, you have to admit that is a direct Hitler quote. He expected DOJ to act as his personal legal team and got rid of FBI directors and AGs who wouldn’t play along. He demonized Muslims and immigrants and people of color the same way Hitler demonized Jews. The current anti trans and anti gay atmosphere is also reminiscent of Nazi Germany. I have done a lot of reading about totalitarianism and I stand by my characterization of Trump and his MAGA acolytes
My Canadian prime minister has openly admired Xi Jinping's "basic dictatorship", so he deserves your "fascist" label then. More likely, he's described (politely) as a narcissistic authoritarian.
None of those things make a person Fascist. I suspect you've never read Hitler and can't point to where he actually said that quote, because people like you who casually fling around the word Fascist think of anything actually written by Nazis between 1920 and 1945 to be like the Necronomicon, where if you even utter a few words you'll summon demon Nazis from Hell or something.
Maybe look up what Orwell had to say about the misuse of the word Fascist.
I don't care HOW GOOD her campaign was, I surely wasn't going to allow another Clinton in the Whitehouse. Scheming, lying, no-good people like the Clintons are far more crooked than Trump.
Exactly!! And there were many Centrist/Libertarian minded Democrats who felt the same way but they were shouted down as well...Hillary is a thoroughly unlikeable, unqualified grifter who screamed "I am Woman, Hear me Roar" while at the same time riding the coattails of a man to accomplish what she never could have on her own merits!
Donald Trump has many faults but he was also generally liked and admired in mainstream circles for much of his career. The fact that the Left turned on him SO brutally, SO quickly, told me everything I needed to know - his candidacy was a danger to TPTB on BOTH sides of the aisle and that is why all of them united against him in such spectacular fashion! Same reason that they all united around the thoroughly corrupt Joe Biden - he is in "the club" and "the club" must be protected at all costs!
And THAT is where all of the so-called Liberals went...back into the clubhouse, with their tails between their legs - because for most of them, it was, sadly, NEVER about actual principles! It was always about protecting "their place" and "their people" regardless of what they did!!
Of course it was never about principles. Remember what Phil Ochs said about liberals. It's as true today as it was back in the sixties. "Ten degrees to the left of center in good times, ten degrees to the right if it affects them personally."
Oh, no disrespect intended towards Helen Reddy! My contempt is reserved for women like Hillary Clinton, Jane Fonda, or Kamala Harris, who scream feminist talking points all day long but never actually live them out in their own lives!
To everyone that complains to me that Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump, I merely observe that there were literally thousands of times that Hillary could have iced her chances of becoming president...a word here, a gesture there, a visit to a state with a meaningful constituency.
Her failure to do is an abject lesson to all candidates for any position in our system of governance. Arrogance is a turn-off. Insults to constituencies are vote losers. Graciousness to opponents is common decency.
The degree to which she and her advisors believed their own lies was astonishing.
I am in the camp that thinks that Trump one because he took on the existing power structure. And I am in the camp that thinks, with more than ample confirming evidence, that the power structure, labeling itself "The Resistance" rose up like a monolith and spent Trump's four years implementing the "insurance policy" that disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok mentioned in his e-mail to fellow agent Lisa Page.
I end up, today, wondering what, if anything, it takes to press charges of for the illicit abuse of office under the color of authority. There are more than a handful from that curious time that needs their fates be decided by an objective jury of their peers.
Why aren't Comey, McCabe, Baker, Strzok, and Page in the docks for their absolutely odious and traitorous crimes against our citizens and insults to our Constitution, our institutions and our laws?
<Sigh> I wish I could force my brain to see things in such simple, clear-cut terms.
Along these same lines, I identify as a classic Liberal. I feel disillusioned, confused and angry about the Democratic Party’s movement to embrace Orwellian speech and other anti-freedom “woke” policies.
But.... here’s the thing:
I can’t just take off my Liberal mantle, say “it was swell while it lasted,” and move on to another political faction. There’s nowhere else to go.
Because, I never CHOSE to be a Liberal, I simply came this way. I don’t feel like it’s a changeable quality.
I was raised in a fairly conservative family. Liberal views were not instilled in me at a young age or at any time at all, really. But I was born with a critical, analytical nature - over time, I recognized that my brain best made sense of the world through classic liberal ideals.
Believe me - I read, I research, I question, I ponder, I consciously endeavor to look for truth over personal comfort. Alas, to no relief.
Here’s the thing about Liberals that is maybe not being articulated - while we are upset about certain elements of the Democratic Party platform, overall it’s still the party that’s reflects most of our general beliefs.
So while I wasn’t a big fan of Hillary, nor did I care whether it was ”time for a woman”, I voted for her in 2016 because she was the candidate who had the platform in most congruence with my political views.
I guess I’m a realist. I don’t believe in protest voting - I continue to partially blame the Ralph Nader Campaign for the terrible damage done to the US under the Bush-Cheney Administration.
And listen - I’m not happy that this is how I make voting decisions, I’m not cool with any of the current choices afforded the American public - I LONG FOR for a better alternative, but I don’t see one.
RFK Jr. represents most of the classical liberal views. Unfortunately the corporate media demonizes him, and those who never bother to stray outside the propaganda have no idea.
What you have to give up is the continual buying into the bullshit that both political parties have to offer, and the additional layers of nonsense that the candidates pile on top.
You can start this process by parsing out the facts before coming to conclusions. You have to be resigned to the fact that sometimes the facts aren't supportive of your politics, and have to be strong enough to allow the facts to mold your solutions.
Far too many people who hold the microphone or get published in journals are dealing from stacked decks or palming cards to achieve some advantage. For example, I read in the Guardian today a piece excoriating the Supreme Court for exercising authority. The article focused on this session's hot-button cases. But it was quickly clear that the author either had not read or didn't understand the opinions of the Court, or those of the concurring or dissenting.
Just how undemocratic can it get when the Supreme Court advocates that it is time for Congress to weigh in on matters political? The audacity of those right-wing justices daring to apply what the Constitution holds to be essential to our liberties !! Unspeakable! Their tyranny is excruciating!
And how many of the Guardian's readers will take the time to comprehend how shallow and sophomoric the author was being
The real reason that HC lost is that she isn’t any less disgusting than Trump and she has the personality and demeanor of a condescending, privileged and arrogant war monger. Other than that she’s fine.
but it was THE LAST straw. there's a bunch of others that mostly come down to the Blob's belief that they are entitled to screw things up. ooops I meant to say govern.
I loved watching Trump driving both the Republican and Democrat parties crazy. To me it was pretty simple- the regular person was saying F you to the establishment of both parties.
As the Democrat power elite is protected by a ring of professionals, academics, and media types who have pretty nice lives no matter how the other 91% of the country is suffering, Trump is protected by a ring of small-business millionaires—in "real-world" sectors like construction, real estate, car and boat dealership—who came up straight out of the working class and are unapologetically proud of and defend the freedom to enjoy their hard-earned high-decibel, high-carbon, steak-and-booze lifestyles. That kind of wealth seems within one generation's reach of the working class (including immigrants) and is the unrefined, high-octane American Dream. Most Democratic voters now are riding high on a cushion of several generations of such wealth that distances them from its "dirty" roots.
FWIW, Local Gentry are often NOT self-made. That guy who inherited his Dad's insurance agency or a factory making car parts both qualify as "Local Gentry", although many Local Gentry are in fact self-made or have expanded their inheritances.
Still, the biggest difference between the income stream of Local Gentry and that of the PMC is that Local Gentry are more tied to a specific location and to ownership of assets.
It was satisfying to watch her lose, I say this as former 'D' voter. But it was instructive to watch people melt down after she lost. The friends I knew who didn't melt down over Donald are the same that didn't melt down over covid. Funny that.
I agree 100% with B.C. I lost many friends over Trump and they were the same people who screamed about any rejection of the vaxx. What's really sad is that these same (Baby Boomer-age) folks claimed to be "anti-establishment" during our salad days. They now claim that I'm the one who has changed my politics, when all I see is that they were never really anti-establishment and are now revealed as dedicated leftist authoritarians. In fact one of them stated that there is no such thing as left authoritarianism!
It makes sense to question authority, but to be anti establishment just to be anti establishment is adolescent. At one time we were told not to trust anyone over thirty. Now, we ourselves are way over 30, and I, for one, have gained respect for what is learned over a lifetime of experience and that people who have gained expertise from years of study and experience might be worth listening to
Good observation re: covid. But how do you explain the fact that you've probably lost friends (who you thought were intelligent) over the path of the Dem Party since 2016 and their willingness to demonize anything remotely different than their own subjective views?
They trust the MSM and cannot question what is put before them. Other than that I really don't know. Most of them were more my husband's friends than my own and they would constantly call each other over something on Colbert or something Trump said. When he died I had a good excuse to 'lose' their numbers along with his phone.
She is the most vile evil person (she is not a woman) ever to run. Thank god for Trump because not one of the Republican candidates in 2016 would have taken her on in the way Trump did.
He later said that that not planning for the aftermath was the "greatest mistake" of his presidency.
I find it impossible to believe that no one thought about the aftermath, his remarks are simply not credible. The destruction of order there and the ensuing chaos was his goal.
Yes, he greenlighted the destruction and so is legally and morally culpable. But it was still Hillary's evil plan. Her, Rice and Power. The Three Fates.
Obama is a moral monster who killed little children in Waziristan on just his third day in office, and then never stopped doing it. Just days before he left office he bombed Libya yet again.
The greatest mistake of Obummer's presidency was no prosecution of Wall Street. They committed the largest heist ever known to man --- it took $29 TRILLION in bailout AND they got to keep all the 18 million homes they stole with forged documents.
I hate that man with all of what resides inside me. FUCK OBAMA!
If you want to prosecute "Wall Street", make room in their cells for government regulatory agencies that forced banks into making loans they would never have made. Make room for the ratings agencies that rated these pulverized loans "AAA", paid for by the banks and given monopoly authorization by the government. Make room for Freddie and Fannie for expanding their briefs to absorb loans they knew were no good, and for Barney Frank who, cognizant of the problem, said "let's roll the dice". Well, we did. I know it's a mystery to some of you, but the reason "Wall Street" is not in jail is because they followed the rules the government laid out, as did the banks. I was in the middle of this and saw it from every side. This is a problem that never needed to happen, another gift of our elected representatives.
I have said over and over that I saw the government collude with Wall Street to allow them to continue the crimes to steal my home with forged documentation.
The ONLY thing I disagree with you about: they didn't "force" the banks to do anything. The banks WILLINGLY made those horrible loans because they had produced a fraud scheme so large that it will curl your toes when you understand it.
But yes, there are many many people who belong in prison for life.
Let me tell you a story. I was on a small community bank board. The OTS (regulators) performed their usual audit and first told us the good news - we earned a high score that would ensure our borrowing facilities and reassure our depositors and investors. Then they told us that, regardless of how we ran the bank, they were going to give us a subpar score if we did not increase minority lending. We never discriminated in the slightest but there were few minority borrowers in our largely homogenous white community. We needed that rating and they were, after all, the Feds. Our CFO went door to door in a poor Hispanic community asking if anyone wanted to borrow money. The loan that earned us our higher rating was actually to a wealthy individual with an italian surname in a millionaire's neighborhood. The regulator recognized the name as latin-sounding and gave us the higher rating. This is your government at work.
So just throw up our hands? And put the squeeze on “regular” people when they make stupid decisions financially? ( I’m thinking student loan forgiveness Biden wanted pushed through) kind of...let’s go after stupid kids who took on a ton of debt, but because everything in finance is so intertwined with our lives..we’ll let’s just let the Ivy educated (you know...the best and brightest) off scot-free in relation to their idiotic decisions . I mean it only cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars.
Look I don’t agree with the student loan thing, but it’s not just a happy accident to our “elite” get to watch regular people fight amongst themselves about exponentially lower dollar amounts and the effect they have on our economy. We’re fighting the fight for them.
I cringe because I’m not a populist, Marxist, any kind of ist. That’s not me. It’s just become crystal clear that the best and brightest in our country are really neither of either descriptor. Shits getting old.
In talking to a student at Occupy, what I didn't realize----students now have to sign a "Master Promissory Note." This note has no fixed amount. The uni then just adds to the debt whenever they want to. One gal told me she caught the Univ of WA adding $8000 AFTER she had withdrawn from the school. So, how and why could they do that? She won in court and didn't have to pay the $8000, but holy shit!
LT, I haven't seen anything that covers the subject well. My experience in this area (and I've only touched on it) was all first hand. I detailed a lot of what was going on in quarterly newsletters to our firm's wealth management clients from 2005-2009, but I'm retired now and not even sure where those are. Maybe I should write something - it's a story that is misunderstood and mistold a lot.
He also kept Bush's wars going and started five new ones. He increased drone attacks 10 times. He killed hundreds of civilians, that's admitted. It was probably thousands of them. And for what?
Obama is a psychopath, a human monster, and a war criminal.
I knew he was a fraud when he went along with Hillary’s support of the coup in Honduras at the very start of his presidency. Was not long after the elevation of that murderous regime that desperate parents sent their children north on their own.
Those who decry all the refugees coming to the US need to take a closer look at the degradation the US forces on innocent people in the name of corporate control of those countries. Fuck any pol that supports imperialism abroad.
Planning for the aftermath requires a proper understanding of the status quo.
Libya was a well-run xxproblemxx edit country with a terrorist problem. Keeping Gadafi was the obvious solution. But creating the perception that Gadafi was the problem and the terrorists were the victims left CIA/UK/FRance HRC and Obama all completely unable to make the right judgements.
On the other hand, as she has pointed out, building democracy isn't easy. Maybe you need to be patient. Turning one of the wealthiest countries in Africa into a failed state with open air slave markets is a small price to pay for the opportunity Hillary's War gave the people of Libya to vote in democratic elections. And I'm confident that the many if not all of the thousands of Libyans who fled their war-torn country and drowned while crossing the Mediterranean took great comfort in the fact that the person most responsible for their miserable deaths was a woman.
I agree with several posters here; although I’m on my lunch break and can’t read all 2200 comments.
Basically, Assange’s leaks about Clinton, combined with the DNC perverting democracy by throwing Sander’s votes in the trash, along with the murders of Seth Rich and Shawn Olsen, caused the rift between “Democrats” and actual left-wing, or liberal, Americans. Go ahead and try to explain how the items I just listed above are exactly what propelled Trump into the White House, and watch all your “liberal” friends become your Demoncrat brownshirt hysterical blood enemies. Joe Biden and his administration are trampling free speech as Joe drools into his pudding and shits himself onstage, while his son fucks his dead brother’s wife while smoking crack and leaving a gun in a dumpster....and you will still hear, “well it’s not as bad as Trump”. A true state of cognitive collapse...at least I can still read and comment with my favorite “so-called” journalist here on Substack. Cheers Matt; keep swinging!
It was fabulous to watch the results in a Seattle bar, where all the idiots were triggered by my laughter! I still remember their angry entitled faces! Hahahahahahaha!
Because you created the disaster we’re facing. Every woman who dies because of abortion bans, every child killed in a school shooting, and every person who dies because of unchecked fossil fuel burning is your fault and you’re too much of an egoist to face that.
Olbermann is by far the most wild and unhinged for a big name pundit, in an unfiltered angry id sort of way, but I think he's kind of the real representative of the new-look Democratic Party, screaming partisan talking points into a camera from his basement. (See his response to a kind, well-thought out Cornel West tweet from this week.)
Scarborough is 100% angry jerk, Rachel Maddow likely holds the record for paranoid conspiracies and lies on TV in the modern era, Medhi Hasan is an obnoxious, lying bully happy to roll over anyone with zero stops at reason or basic human kindness, and Joy Reid might be the most divisive, hateful person ever on TV. Watching The View makes your brain shrivel and shrink and devolve into something subhuman. This is what we're up against. These people aren't "liberal" or "left-wing" or "democratic," and they certainly don't do news.
I love the Fifth Column guys telling her how much they detest having to even listen to the clips of The View when they come on. It made me wonder if The View would even be on TV if so many other news programs and pods didn't play their clips.
As an aside, my brother is in media and a friend/colleague used to produce The View. He lasted a year and then went back to House Hunters (HGTV)!
Know them? Know them in the sense of occasionally seeing clips of them, or getting stuck in a situation where MSNBC is on, which is like the 7th circle of hell, I guess.
Jon Stewart became something of a cultural icon showing clips of some of the more unhinged moments from Fox News. Sure, we knew it was one-sided and all of the 24-hour news networks have always been awful and toxic, but it was entertaining. Now, I keep hearing about Tucker Carlson being a unique danger and "clearly inciting violence" on his now-canceled (censored?) show. When I'd see the Carlson clip in question, it was usually provocative, maybe even mean, but required quite a bit of projection ("dog-whistling!" they scream) to get anywhere near how it was being described. Go to Twitter and watch some of Joy Reid's lowlights, which are by far more mean and extreme and gross, and wonder where Jon Stewart is with the clips of this. No, Jon Stewart has become one of them: another comedian turned against comedy, to embrace the hallelujah choir of post-liberal, illiberal "liberals" (see his bizarre cornering of Andrew Sullivan to accuse him of being a racist for a glaring, horrifying example).
Stewart's turn might be the most disappointing. He went from the man whose criticisms of Crossfire raised important questions about media behavior to a man who is more interested in promoting the elite's narrative.
Meanwhile, Carlson (who was on Crossfire at the time), has become a man more willing to push back against that narrative.
🤣 ever since Mika divorced her husband and married Scarborough, she’s worn a permanent scowl. She’s either trying to appear continuously ‘concerned", but more likely her ‘knickers are permanently twisted’
Hey there Janine. While you might have left out some y’s and s’s I hear ya kiddo loud and clear. We don’t listen to each other’s stories anymore. We don’t debate, and it’s going to kill us in the end. That’s truly where our problem lies.
Thanks for the update 👍🏻not a watcher - too painful 😂 that said, he ought to be careful as Putin might ‘whack’ him whereas Trump only throws a mean tweet.
You’re right, though I think one could see this partisan lack of principle in the way the antiwar movement instantaneously collapsed amongst mainstream Democrats the instant Obama came into office. In 2015 Blinken gave the Saudis the green light to begin bombing Yemen and when I started telling liberals about this their reflexive reaction ( every single time) was to rationalize it, because Obama was responsible and so must have had a good reason. And the same thing happened with drone strikes— nothing Obama did could be criticized.
There's been suggestions, and maybe even some proof — although I haven't followed it closely — that @BrooklynDadDefiant, as well as a couple of other big #resistance "influencers" on Twitter are well-paid by a DNC-aligned super-PAC.
And yes, they're not "resisting," they're the Kingdom of Karens demanding to speak to the manager on the biggest scale possible, and unfortunately, Clinton, Biden, Obama and the entire mainstream of the Democratic Party (and the entire west really) have answered that call, to become the smiling omniscient manager, here to save you from that pesky democratic process and the free speech of working and middle class types upset with the status quo (i.e. the "deplorables").
I do think Trump deranged almost half of the country to the point they went overboard on everything and haven’t come back. Look at the “racism is everywhere!” hysteria; the ADL and SPLC transitioning into propaganda orgs for the Democrats; MSNBC and CNN becoming way more partisan and unhinged than Fox; look at our cities embrace destructive nihilism in the name of progressive values; the constant lies about white supremacy; the reframing of 1/6 from a riot into a full blown attempted coup; the complete and utter collapse of formerly reputable mainstream media organizations like the NYT and LAT and Wapo that engage in daily attacks on people on the basis of their skin color and seem bent on starting a race war. On and on and on and on...
It's not really the #resistance in particular. It's just around that time Dem party people have started to figure out social media's potential for totalitarian level of thought control.
Both Obama and Clinton claimed to be "free speech absolutists," and were 100% in favor of an open internet ten years ago, especially Obama, who harnessed Facebook to go from a relative unknown to the president, using mostly platitudes.
When Trump did the exact same thing with Twitter they changed their tune. They didn't want someone like Trump to be able to use their toys! That's why Hillary Clinton's camp mostly created the "misinformation" scare, and why she talks about Putin and Russia almost incessantly, and Obama — that former free speech champion who's likely the puppet-master behind the current "Weekend at Bernie's" Biden disaster — does talks only about the scourge of mis/dis/mal-info and has turned his back on MLK's racial politics, and seems to embracing Ibram X. Kendi's instead.
The Resistance still cracks me up. Pathetic people changing their fb profiles and posing as if they’re fighting behind German lines. It’s just all so pompous and self-important.
It goes back further than that. I remember the fall of 1980. I was trying to gather up some friends for a pre-holiday get-together. Several of them couldn't make it; they were going downtown to protest Ronald Regan. Protest what? I asked. He hasn't done anything; he's not even in office yet. All he's done is get elected. *That's* what we're protesting, they replied. I told them, in that case you're not protesting against Regan; you're protesting against democracy. They didn't understand.
I saw similar sore-loserdom in 1988 (almost got into a fight with a guy who claimed that, since he didn't vote for him, George Bush was not *his* president), 1994, 2000, 2004 and 2008.
2016 was the exact same thing. But social media made it bigger, and mainstream media actually joined in.
Resist Trump, of course! But also resist Fox News, and Republicans, or Tucker Carlson, and Elon Musk, and libertarians, and lefties and liberals who don't agree with the Democrats at all times, or reporters who write articles that don't come to the accepted conclusion or report news harmful to the Democrats, or anyone who refuses to put up the politicized-symbols-of-the-week on their social media or lawns, or people who try to ignore this, or just whatever everyone in the #resistance thinks we need to resist on a daily basis. Simple, really!
I always think one of the most sage lines about the modern, post-liberal Democrat, especially the idiot mindhive variation born in Brooklyn, coming from a King Missile song: "I want to be different, like everybody else I want to be like."
Which brain do you think is more broken, the one that resists the policies of an elected president, or the one that insists a president who lost actually won? Obviously Dems/libs have their problems, but I don't understand how anyone can look at the modern political landscape and think it's the left that's resisting reality or choosing party over principles more than Trump supporters and the right. Who won the election in 2020? How many Republican voters or politicians in office acknowledge that?
I’m neither a conservative nor a Trump voter, and very much on the political left, but I think the massive, and almost totally fake, and continuing Russiagate campaign - and a million other instances of outright illiberal and often unconstitutional/illegal behavior on the part of the Democrats - is what led to the reactive madness you’re describing. It's bad, yes, but can’t be viewed in a vacuum, as the “reality resistance” is wont to do.
The Democrats shifting to become an almost totally right wing party, and absorbing all of the Bush neocons into its ranks, over the last decade is also a big part of this mess. Who needs a real resistance when one shitty party does it all?
I agree that the hype and speculation around Trump's involvement with Russia flew off the handle, but most people I know on the left accepted the key findings of the Mueller report. The report stated that Russians interfered in the election in a "sweeping and systemic fashion", that Trump tried to obstruct the investigation and his associates lied to investigators about their connections with the Russian government on numerous occasions. It led to 37 indictments and 14 criminal matters referred to other departments. But it did not show the smoking gun collusion between Trump and the Russian government that many on the left assumed it would.
But what's worse, the speculation and misinformation that swirled before the release of the Mueller Report, or the attempts to steal an election and refusal to accept the reality that Trump lost in 2020? He tried to stop legal votes from counting, he tried to stop the transfer of power to the winner, he continues to lie about it. And yet he's the front runner for the Republican Party. How is that not the larger scandal and affront to people in this country, regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum or which party you usually vote for?
Been paying attention, still living in reality. Don't really care why you think the investigation was fraudulent. You also think Trump won the election so I can't take you seriously.
You say “most people on the left” agreed with the Mueller report, but you mean “resistance democrats,” who are not on the left, but have certainly made the Mueller report part of their religion, which is worship of official propaganda and intelligence, and the military-and-money-worshiping officials in Democratic Party, who are totally divorced from liberal and left-wing values (or human values like truth or justice).
I’ve never voted republican, and mostly only for democrats, but like many people, I now see the only way out is breaking this rotten two-party system, because neither party has anything to offer, and neither is better than the other.
I'm saying many accepted the Mueller report as truth, across the political spectrum. Many on the right celebrated the fact that it didn't make a "collusion" connection between Trump and the Russian government, and many on the left highlighted the parts I mentioned earlier.
Not sure how you plan to break the two party system, but it seems like Trump figured it out: be a third party candidate that gets the nomination of one of the two major parties. He was successful in a way that no third party candidate will be. Bernie almost did the same.
I also can't imagine looking at both parties and thinking neither is better than the other if you're "very much on the political left," especially with the recent Supreme Court decisions, but we apparently see things differently.
Nobody has offered a shred of concrete proof that Russia had anything to do with the DNC hack and leak operation via Wikileaks. Even Mueller himself didn't definitively say that Russia was responsible. Heck - even the CrowdStrike yo-yos couldn't go there while they were testifying under oath. The "37 indictments" that you're referencing included a bunch of guys from Russia that, when their attorney entered an appearance in the case, were almost instantly dropped under the guise of "national security." As far as I'm concerned, the entire thing was a ruse by Hillary and the DNC to cover up for the complete an utter failure that was losing the 2016 election to Trump.
Russian fingerprints are all over election interference and there's plenty of evidence. US Counterintelligence groups have been tracking Russian operations that included email phishing, social media malware, human and bot operations, mass dissemination of disinformation, attempted breaches of voter databases, targeted political campaigns, bot farms and staged rallies. If you want to learn more, read the intelligence reports, memos, court filings, case documents, testimonies and investigative news reports. Or you can choose to believe your own narrative that conveniently fits your worldview despite having no evidence or grounding in reality whatsoever.
I told you to go away, and yet here you are. Anyone, that includes you, that thinks the buffoon installed in the White House got over 100 million votes,is irreparable. Sorry. Go play with your legos.
No one but you is claiming Biden got over 100 million votes. He got 81 million, Trump got 74 million. If you still think Trump won after it's been disproven and debunked over and over, you have no credibility and aren't a serious person.
"Resisting" the reality that Donald Trump won an election, and aligning with the DC blob and intelligence and military and the corporate sphere to create one of the most extreme propaganda campaigns in modern US history to "resist" this fact. Do you call that rebellion, or the existential speaking to the manager?
Good observations. There’s the claim that the so-called left pushed free expression on the way to power, but once there, jettisoned it to maintain their position. I contend that like the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man in the first Ghostbusters movie, power—think the WEF—has harnessed the old myths of the left—FDR, JFK, RFK, Woodward & Bernstein, Carter—to conceal their wicked agenda. If you object to the mass, coerced mystery injections, or the sudden notion that nuclear weapons are now Safe & Effective, or that freedom of expression is the only bulwark we have against tyranny, then you are branded a white supremacist. The Bolsheviks & Nazis conducted equally demented witch-hunts. I hope this new insanity ends much better yet I fear otherwise.
Yes. It's good to keep clear the difference between "deep state" (for lack of a better word) and its so-called "Leftists" who are actually executing a long causal chain of authoritarian leadership, on the one hand, and the generations of misled Democratic Party voters-for-fairness, on the other.
People on the Right often unwittingly conflate the two. They should also recognize the parallels with their own side.
Well stated, @Anti-Hip.. the parallel sides in which you make your reference to, is also known as the Uniparty who answer to the real power like big pharma and companies that are part of the military industrial complex. They are in the game for power and generational wealth. Keep the masses at each other's throats to blind them to the truth, which is dutifully parroted by there lackeys in MSM.
There's such a long, long, list of issues that demonstrate that so many of the supposed civil libertarians and issue-focused NGOs are really just partisan Democrats. NOW cared about women until it conflicted with their desire to support Bill Clinton. The NAACP cares about black families until they demand school choice vouchers that conflicts with the interests of the Democratic party. The ACLU cares about free speech until it conflicts with transgender activists. The Anti-Defamation League cares about Jewish interests until presented with anti-semitic comments of BLM activists. AARP advocates for the interests of retired people until the Affordable Care Act needed to raid Medicare funds to make the math work.
The ADL is the most thoroughly foul of the lot, in this Jew's opinion; they've been committing more defamation than opposing or dispelling it for a good long time now, and you can count on them like clockwork to be on the wrong side of almost any issue (I mean, I'm certain they're not Holocaust-deniers, but such is their total nega-credibility otherwise, I almost wish they WERE).
Now of course in the Ukraine-O-Mania Era, they're even making excuses for full-fledged Neo-Nazis - and barely a breath after regurgitating Woke talking-points about "white supremacy", too! I think Richard Spencer, of all people, hit the nail on the head there: It's a "photographic negative" of his own ideology.
As a nonJew, I have always been puzzled by the ADL. It seems like they go out of their way to make enemies out of people who would otherwise to support their agenda.
The outward manifestation of the NeoCon/Woke/malignant narcissist/fascist pathology in a nutshell, one could say: The well-known cycle of abuse in its full, hideous flower.
Ultimately, group identity itself is the problem, and true progress in the 21st Century should mean phasing it out, not doubling down on it. Before 2020, I'd have only partly been joking when I said I wish vaccines really DID cause autism. I am very fortunate to have been born without a USB-port to what I've been calling 'the Human Hivemind' ever since I first picked up on its existence in middle-school; I wish more than almost anything I could strip it from everybody else as well.
As an American who has travelled a lot and presents as Eastern European (part Romanian/Lithuanian) and has encountered incredible prejudice in the Midwest: Americans in general don’t understand that the rest of the world isn’t like them and doesn’t want to be like them. It’s especially hard for Americans to understand that there are other white people, and (gasp!) mixed asiatic/middle eastern nonetheless. Most tolerance is merely an indoctrination and it doesn’t extend very far into the grey areas.
An unappreciated (unknown anymore?) truth of the American experiment was that it was embarked upon to create a polity in which group identity (at the time most prominently religion based) was purposely sidelined. Literally declared to be off limits to how the nation would be governed. Revolutionary idea that most existing regimes/societies said would fail because no polity could have cohesion without that shared group identity. Perhaps they were right after all. :(
Agreed. Too pessimistic in that post; it is being sabotaged and has not failed. I just feel totally out of my depth in fighting it outside of influencing my small group of family and friends. Never thought I'd live in a place where politics might be existential. I hate it.
Or, if you like, pretend that someone other than the Ukrainian military were sporting swastikas and SS regalia. Would the NYT be tying themselves into knots to make excuses for them, especially if that Nazi insignia were worn by people that the State Department did not like?
Meanwhile, these blind party loyalists that are calling for one party tyrannical rule, label any opposition as Hitler reincarnate. Liberals have become like libertarians and also true conservatives homeless politics wise. What we have now is a uniparty full of globalists that wants endless war and total control of every aspect of life. Even the socialist heartthrob AOC votes yes on every appropriation to Ukraine to fund the globalist money laundering scheme. She’s nothing more than Lindsey graham with a wig.
Maybe some Democrats are hard core party-liners, but i bet there are a lot more Liberals like me who are baffled and deeply concerned by the new Orwellian trend. We’re here en masse, but without an organized public voice or any political agency. That gap in agency creates space that’s filled with the general assumption that everyone on the left agrees with the actions and policies of the Democratic Party. This is a mistake.
Maybe a good question is “why aren’t you old-fashioned Liberals making your voice heard?” Up to this point in my life, I’ve I done my best to participate in politics as best I can - which was/is to stay informed as a citizen and vote in every election - local and national. I have a job (scientist for a non profit environmental org - which comes with its own, separate political agenda) and kids to raise, so I can’t just put life on hold to become a full-time political activist. And I’ve looked around and there are seemingly no candidates in my area (or anywhere) who have free speech protection as part of their platform.
My only option seems to be switching parties from Democrat to Independent. But I’d much rather stay on as a Democrat and try to push my party back towards classic liberalism.
I hope this doesn’t sound like I’m whining, but I’m at a loss. How do I stand up against political censorship right now?
Great post, Stephanie. I am you in 20-25 years, winding down my career in my mid-60s, lifting my head from my work desk, and realizing the Democratic Party I (usually) favored has done a 180 on more issues than not, most painfully on free speech and other civil liberties.
I switched to Independent right after the 2020 election, and it certainly feels better than being part of an increasingly totalitarian ship. My hope is the party will return from Crazy Town one of these years. Not real confident that will happen, but it certainly won't if people like us stay on as members.
Most notably, I write to all of my federal, state, and local officials, tell them specifically why I've switched, and what would bring me back, and turn down every financial solicitation, explaining that I now contribute only to true centrist candidates from both parties.
My single voice means nothing, of course, but if and when enough of us follow suit, it will have an effect, particularly if/when their financial contributions decline significantly.
Democratic voter identification has dropped from from 36% eight years ago to 25% a couple months ago. That's close to 20 million voters. (See Gallup monthly tracking of voter affiliation.)
It doesn't feel great to be party-less, but it feels better than supporting or (lord knows) voting for the extremists who control the two major parties.
Another factor: if us voters don't "defund" the half-religion, half-corporations that masquerade as our two political parties, what else will bring the changes that are needed?
It's really hard to stand up now. Social media and the forever-memory of the internet have made it very difficult to take controversial stands and also to literally survive because your employment, career, family life, and social life are held hostage to cancellation.
We have to stay individually grounded, do what you can, pick your spots. Inoculate your children against group-think; shield them from social media.
Some of us will go balls-out, like Matt, and at least we can financially support the ones on the front line.
“I have a job (scientist for a non profit environmental org - which comes with its own, separate political agenda) and kids to raise, so I can’t just put life on hold to become a full-time political activist”
You’re making an excuse for not standing up for your political principals by saying you’re “too busy,” while the actual truth is secretly contained in your sentence.
Like you, many people who profess to support liberal values are part of institutions captured by these illiberal ideas and your own rational self interest of wanting to remain employed is the real reason. If you’ve ever bit your tongue over some unscientific ideological claptrap at work just to “go along to get along” you are the very thing you complain about.
True liberals aren’t lacking an “organized and public voice,” they are lacking a backbone.
Gee, Aaron, tell us how you've loudly espoused views at work that would get you fired because your conservative principles are far more important than your ratiional self-interest in feeding your family and paying your mortgage. C'mon, tell us how you tell your truth to bosses who think your truth is repellent.
I work at a very blue company in the bluest area of a blue state and am constantly in trouble for standing up and speaking out in all sorts of ways from refusal to state pronouns and perform land acknowledgements to kowtowing to DEI claptrap. Do I have a perfect track record? Of course not, but I fall short I know it’s on no one but myself.
Perhaps while you’re going to sleep tonight you should reflect on why my comment hit such a nerve with you.
If you don’t have a perfect track record why are you jumping on Stephanie, who signed her full name? You engaged in a nasty personal attack on someone asking a sincere question.
You didn't hit a nerve. You hit my annoyance meter because you called her a coward. Nothing she said indicated a lack of courage; she asked how she could become more politically active while working full-time and raising kids.
You're not whining, and staying with the party and trying to push it back to sanity is an option. I don't know how realistic it is as long as they know you will keep voting for whoever has a D after their name, but this is the problem with what is essentially a two party system, with not much real difference between the parties on the things that matter. I was always an independent who typically voted Democrat. I would rather see a bunch of people leave and form a lot of third parties that actually represent their views than continue letting these two parties keep playing their games. But I suspect that my approach is just as apt to be futile as yours.
No, staying with the party and trying to push it back to sanity is not an option. Been there, tried that. (I’d like to feel hopeful about RFK, but we all know he’ll be pushed to the side by the DNC) The writing is on the wall in bold letters, we’re dealing with the Uniparty now. Our only hope is to create a viable 3rd party, though we’re quickly running out of time...
I switched from Democrat to Independent before Obama, because I saw the writing on the wall. I feel like I’ll never go back, though RFK Jr. gives me some hope. (Most likely false hope, as was the case with Bernie). These days I’m finding myself more and more in the MAGA camp, because I realize what the stakes are and I’m 100% against the globalist agenda.
What you have now days is two groups, one group that has principles, and one that doesn’t. The group with principles stays in one political spot (wherever that is) while everyone else orbits and moves around you. It is very confusing for us folk who have stayed true to their beliefs regardless to what us played on the media or barked by politicians. I always say, a person without principle is dangerous because they can rationalize anything to be moral or just.
I regular get asked if I'm a "leftist." And when I say "what do you mean by that?" It's as if I'm being evasive. But I'm not. This is why I argue for the quadrant version of political viewpoints more than simple left right. We have a boatload of authoritarianism in the country, both on the right and the left.
As long as leftists advocate for government-provided freebies, they are indirectly advocating for an authoritarian government. No other way to obtain the social goodies they want. But then don’t be surprised if this is exactly where leftist ideas lead. History has clearly warned us, and yet here we are. And people shake their heads and wonder why?
Your second sentence is utterly untrue. it is logically false.
Where the hell do you think the funds (the hard-earned wealth) comes from to pay for your idiotic, immoral "social safety net" comes from, donations?!?!
Legal theft (property and income taxes) is to "an infringement on personal freedom".
Yes. I apologize for calling your opinion idiotic. It is not.
But your argument that any social contract comes without cost *is* against all logic.
The "Social Contract" is live and let live governed by the golden Rule, more or less, but it is *not* a permission for Society, and Society's terrible agent the State, to violate pre-existing individual property rights. Even more importantly, it is *not* a financial burden on new human beings. We are *not* born into this world owing *any* debt, period.
That is the only basis to form a free and just human society; the Classical Liberalism (Capitalism) of the Declaration and Constitution (as properly amended).
In politics, they got the whip hand in 1933. The change Mr. Taibbi is alluding to occurred only a few years ago. The first seriously repressive stuff I can recall was cancel culture.* Most of the participants defined themselves pretty far over on the supposed Left. Their targets were usually not rightists or conservatives but -- liberals. The peculiar thing is that the targeted liberals didn't seem to fight back.
As for liberalism and warmongering, that goes _way_ back. Just as a matter of style and fashion, the War in Vietnam (started by and carried forward by liberals) has followed almost the same story line as the War in Ukraine. In general, the previous wars were bad (except World War 2, "the Good War") but the present war is delicious, excellent, and thoroughly righteous. I wish we had some real liberals around to explain these mysteries to us.
*A friend of mine who was a radical feminist back in the day told me there was an earlier form of this called "trashing".
Fair point. I think It's probably caused by the long march through the institutions by the Far Left. They've finally reached critical mass after educating a few generations with this B.S. and thus there is key support for their agenda all through society and government.
BUT....it has still happened so quickly and completely that we are all, like Matt, struggling to make sense of what's come roaring at us. I think we must consider "outlandish" explanations such as that a powerful cabal of evil totalitarians have been operating behind the scenes for decades, even centuries. Now they are making their more brazen moves for the ultimate power they have always wanted because it's finally possible. Technology and Gramscian infiltration enable a top-down, bottom-up, turn-key suppression of billions of people.
Your first paragraph nails one cause of this. I agree. Matt wrote a profile of Marcuse a year or so ago which was very good.
However, it's no longer the "Far Left" in the traditional economic sense. It's a cultural left that almost ignores political economy and simply grifts its way through as many race and gender hustles as it can concoct -- all the while sadistically demonizing "whiteness" and white males in particular with no sense of true world history anywhere in the world or the experience in other cultures with predation, abuse, warfare, empire building or various other human indignities.
It's an utterly repugnant spectacle that any and all true liberals should be deeply ashamed by. But they aren't. They're in on the grift as participants for self-enrichment, careerist advantage or they're the useful idiots that every demagogue needs and then throws away once they've served their purpose.
the race angle is a facade as we start to see Asians and Hispanics revealed as White Supremacists" Unless White Supremacy Inc has a DEI department, "whiteness" really signifies bourgeoise. Any minority who embraces the traditional american dream loses their race card.
What "Far Left?" A Far Left would be anarchists, socialists, communists, animal-rights activists, Earth First, and so on. Such people exist but they are very few in numbers and have no visible influence.
Only an American could be ridiculous and propagandized enough to believe either of them are "left" at all, much less "Far Left". Everywhere else on earth they're just garden-variety centrists at best.
The reason the long march suddenly succeeded is the full takeover of the Media. The internet lets everyone have a printing press, and that collapsed the Legacy Media's business model based on advertising. Now, Big Tech scarfs up all ad dollars. To stay afloat, the Media depends on governments and political actors who are buying "narratives". Uncensored individuals are competitors who must be squashed. Since the Left has essentially all the money, as they have the new trillion dollar industries and are allied with China, they buy the narratives.
I think you're partly correct -- some never did and only pretended to.
But there were assumptions about censorship and freedom of the press that filtered into the cultural operating system and constrained -- almost in an unconscious way -- government intrusion in these areas. Those assumptions and constraints have shifted considerably as the "culture" here has changed. That change is very noticeable for those of us who lived as adults in the "before" time compared to now.
It's not all just a revelation of hypocrisy, although hypocrits and fakers are always among us. There has been a very notable cultural change and attitude change.
I wonder if it's not more about the cult of the personality, than the party. The sickening cult of obama quickly and vociferously damned any criticism of obama as racist, stifling free expression and thought. When hillary clinton was kicked to the curb, was it that lifelong democrat Donald Trump was so bad? Or just that he'd violated the cult of clinton?
You are the one being silly as his reference was past tense. If you want to argue that robust criticism of Obama was responded to, like for example about his eligibility for office, without incessant and spurious charges of racism do so but lol.
Your second statement is another mischaracterization of a very simple comment:
"What was so bad about Trump?"
Mikker: "So all criticism was tds?"
Comment was very obviously referring to the unhinged reaction to Trump, an often feted lifelong Democrat, that followed his appearance as a Republican candidate.
There will be no answer, because he didn't. In fact, those of us that knew him before,knew him to be pretty blind to a persons hue. But tds demands it.
Persuaded yourself that he was never a democrat, or swallowed the narrative about his alleged "hatred against Muslims, black people, and trans people" because his donations to and friendships with prominent Democrats is factual information.
Meanwhile you cannot find anybody levelling these racism/fascism criticisms against Trump, a famous, all-over-television asshole, from before he ran as a Republican. I wonder why that is?
Why did they let a known racist fascist become a feted reality TV star?
"You're hopeless. I just shared with you reporting from 1990, literally a reprint of the article that was the source of the speculation that Trump was a Nazi"
Thanks for the article, I read and enjoyed that. Speculation (not even any actual evidence) that Trump joked about his heritage is not any indication that Trump is a known Authoritarian Fascist Racist. So if anything it proves my point, it was a throwaway line in a 10,000 word hit piece on a known asshole. Not a known fascist racist authoritarian destroyer of norms and democracy.
Lillia, this is one time I beg to differ with you. It's not that liberals/leftists have chosen party over principle, it's rather the case that a time of crisis has revealed what their principles actually are.
Yes as pointed out elsewhere, they were free speech absolutists because that served their interests when they didn't control the message. This is no longer true.
I think it's a chicken and egg argument, but I see your point. I tend to think of myself as a liberal. I've stayed the same. But I also never identified with a party.
Oh yeah, that's right, it was Vonnegut's term originally...but Linda adopted it as her tag line. Maybe check her out--she was smart, clear, and witty--kind of like you.
Let’s speak plainly: tribalism moves much faster than language. “Liberal” (like “conservative”) are old, immovable houses that have each been burnished over years of taking fire; these words are like the American flag itself. The words lose meaning but these colors don’t run.
1) they live in the past where the Dems were "the good guys." Most of what the left and liberals say today would have been at least somewhat accurate in the 50s and 60s, or maybe the 70s, but not so much since the 80s/90s. They see themselves as anti-establishment and fail to realize liberals and the left have been the establishment - public and private - for 30+ years now. Calling for "resistance" and for "getting in their faces" works when you are an out-of-power minority faction. It doesn't look so good when you hold all the power.
And, 2) that inability to leave the past is due to many former liberals having swallowed - hook, line, and sinker - the propaganda from the far left. They have joined a cult. They may have been formerly skeptical of power and propaganda, but fell for it 100%. They are now propagandized - and in the party that has all the power - which is why we're seeing the dystopian themes we're seeing.
As others pointed out, this came to a head with Donald Trump, who broke them completely (mostly due to hyperbolic Dem-driven propaganda about him). Anything was permitted to "get Trump," including violence, quashing free speech, attacking working class citizens, and violating human rights. Oddly enough, Trump's actual policies are mostly moderate, strongly antiwar, and even more liberal than most Dems' positions. Which is why the (R) party is now the party of the working class. (Even though the GOP does not want that to be the case.)
All that said, I am guessing a lot of these formerly liberal folks are, at some point, going to de-program and return to sanity. It won't be good to be a Dem politician when that happens.
Beautifully stated. For the background on the non-existent moral compass of the far Left, read accounts of the Communist party in the US in the last century such as in the book Witness. Until I did so, I assumed that there were principles involved, and that of course truth and logic were universal values of "normal" people even if they were far to the Left. Instead, members of the Party were in reality only loyal to the Party. The Party was the only reality they would acknowledge, and if the Party praised someone one day and then condemned them the next day for the exact same behaviors, you were supposed to accept that. Indeed, you were supposed to believe it with all your heart. Some, like Whittaker Chambers, woke up when he was asked to accept the insanity, the destruction, the axiom that 2+2=5 if the Party says so.
I used to believe that the Democrat party were the good guys, the ones who stood up against irrationality and totalitarianism. It's so so hard to believe how they have flipped nearly 100%; they are rotted all the way through.
You used the word “signal.” This is important - virtue signaling and the lie by omission are two sides of the same coin. These collectivists actually view that as a positive, ethical thing.
I think the answer is simple. Where once you had liberals who were Democrats, today you have Democrats who call themselves liberals but aren't really. It's party over principle. If you notice all those other things you mentioned, the free speech there didn't really hurt the Democrat Party, and by defending it, they could signal their virtuousness. But today, all the things being censored, are a danger to the Uniparty in general, but the Democrat Party in particular. So now they rationalize curtailing "free speech rights" any way they can.
In short, you're confused because you assume people in parties have principles. They don't, other than the perpetuation of party power. That's it.
The so-called #resistance movement broke the Democrats' brains. Remember when Trump was elected and everyone decided they had to "resist" at all costs, which began with weeks of around-the-clock protests at Trump Tower here in NYC? When a young, newly-minted #resistance protestor was confronted with "what are you protesting? Donald Trump, you know, actually won the election," they'd respond "do you expect us to just accept it?" #Resistance became so all-encompassing that the newer Star Wars movies actually rebranded the Rebellion the Resistance.
Now, resistance means accepting marching orders from @BrooklynDadDefiant or MSNBC or NPR, or whatever your choice of propaganda is. It's all-party, zero-principles, zero acknowledging any evidence of things that don't help your party, etc., even if it means the Democratic Party shifting to top-down, capital-friendly policies more in line with the old Republican Party and aligning with the Military Industrial Complex, the Medical Industrial Complex and the Censorship Industrial Complex, whole-hog.
You have to wonder if what the #resistance is resisting is reality. (Scroll through Keith Olbermann's Twitter feed for 8 seconds for proof from patient zero.)
I was a staunch Democrat who absolutely REFUSED to vote for Hillary, so I was kicked out of the "club." And I was further ostracized when I laughed my ass off when Hillary lost! Seriously, I was asked to leave the bar I was at watching the election returns because my laughter was "triggering." 😂
I agree with you that it was Trump's defeat of Hillary that was the straw that broke the camel's back. It was HER turn, dammit, and when she lost (after running an abysmally poor campaign) the Leftists, led by the media, which lost all semblance of impartially during her husband's administration, just went insane, IMHO!
And Trump made it very easy to go insane. He's just a distasteful character and I suspect it's him personally, not his "positions", that make him so distasteful to the left and fog whatever brains they have.
More distasteful than Hillary Clinton? I'm a proud eastern elite liberal and I became a Trump supporter the minute he rode down the escalator. A truth that few can stomach is that Donald Trump was and still is a liberal Democrat. The only reason he's a Republican is that the GOP was so weak and bereft that he was able to overrun its leadership before they knew what hit them. Today "liberal" has become an identity as opposed to an ideology. Those of us who were paying attention saw the Obama White House as nothing more than Bush's 3rd (and 4th) terms. He continued the same neocon policies -- endless wars, expanded state security apparatus, open borders, and free trade -- at the expense of the American middle class, and co-opted the language and organizing of the far left to the cause. The Clinton takedown of Bernie in the 2016 primaries was the last straw for me. I'm still a liberal, and I'm still supporting a big-spending, peace-loving, US labor-protecting, former US President against a corrupt cabal of corporate boardrooms, government agencies, and state-run media.
I’m not opposed to much of what you say, but liberal Democrats don’t call for the reinstatement of the death penalty against five youths who had not yet gone to trial. Nor do they restrict tenants in their rental properties to white people. But I will always support the notion that Trump’s election may have spared the world some of the wars that Hillary Clinton was drooling to involve the country in.
Say what you will about Trump; he certainly did not bring us to the brink of WWIII.
I agree. And Biden has.
Yup. And #Resistance liberals love it.
The irony being that Ukraine as a society is not that much more Woke! than Saudi Arabia.
It i insane to blame Biden for Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Wake up to reality.
Actually it’s not. There’s a reason the invasion didn’t happen until Biden was in office...
The one tme Obama was right was when we didn't interfere in the prior attempt - a regional dispue that had no bearing on American interests,
Check out todays July 13th interview on Aaron Mate's Pushback podcast. Plenty of backstory of years preparing for this proxy war. Biden is in the middle of it when he was vice president.
Don’t bother with facts. Taibbi The Rapist and his pack of wife-beaters and incels won’t listen.
Nor did he involve the United States in conflicts in foreign lands.
No new wars. Reason Magazine posted during the primary season that, next to Bernie Sanders, Trump was by a large margin the most dove-ish among the candidates. He lived up to that.
And now I'm afraid for our grandchildren.
I have uuuge issues with both Trump and Hillary (spits), but as you say, the greatest hope that HUMANITY has to avoid WWIII is another Trump term. "biden", who is not in charge, and who is in thrall to the MIC and the Deep State - wants to start a war ON Russia. That's because they think that they can 'win' that war, and by 'win' they mean that America will 'only' lose 20 to 30 million people but Russia, and of course, China, will be gone. This is what maniacs like Keith Payne call, "Victory!"
https://archive.org/details/victory_is_possible
I voted for neither in 2016. I did vote for Trump in 2020, but after Russiagate, "mostly peaceful" arson, murder, terror, deep state government censorship, how is one to trust a unipartier on anything?
I do like Rand Paul, who keeps saying the hard stuff, but no-one pays him any mind.
Liberals are, and always have been, the primary carriers of 'white guilt'. Inject a racial component into any argument and they'll robotically side with the most melanin regardless of the evidence.
I get your point, but we need to stop calling these assholes liberals. They're not. They abandoned too many core, liberal principles.
Most Blacks think the white liberals are ridiculous.
Nailed it.
"call for the reinstatement of the death penalty against five youths who had not yet gone to trial. Nor do they restrict tenants in their rental properties to white people. "
Are you sure this is an accurate characterization of events? Did you hear that Trump is a Russian Spy?
I believe so.
“Donald Trump’s $85,000 ad campaign calling to reinstate the death penalty in 1989 became notorious in light of the Central Park Five case.
The ad was placed in four New York papers, including The New York Times, The Daily News, The New York Post and New York Newsday on May 1, 1989, less than two weeks after the brutal rape and assault of Trisha Meili on April 19, 1989.”
I lived in Manhattan then and there was no ambiguity about the intentions.
This was especially odious in view of the fact that the boys were bullied into confessing by corrupt police and were in fact innocent.
There is ambiguity in the discrimination case against Fred and Donald. But I feel secure in stating what every progressive New Yorker knew, minorities weren’t welcome at Trump properties. It’s far more than hearsay.
So Trump placed the ad and then some people later said he wanted to execute, without trial, these five people?
There is ambiguity here also is my only point. Meanwhile it is parroted as fact that he was some kind of racist landlord (and a Russian Spy who like having hookers pee on him. Totally happened).
In the absence of evidence, I suspect most of us will continue to believe the pee tape is bullshit. The problem Trump has here is that it is totally believable that he would have hookers pee on each other in a bed slept in by Obama; this is not inconsistent with his personality. But that sure as hell doesn't make it true, just plausible. The Central Park 5 crap with Trump was not bullshit. It matters not whether he is a racist. He seized the opportunity to call attention to himself in a volatile environment. That is Trump being Trump. Had the initial public sentiment favored the accused, Trump would have run full-page ads decrying police and prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecutors (as they and the cops often/usually are) were the true villains.
Was it known within two weeks of the rape that the boys had been bullied into confessing by corrupt police and were in fact innocent, or did that fact come out later? I don't live in NY, but I remember that it was quite shocking when the allegations of police coercion came out. If I had heard that five boys had raped a woman and confessed, I would probably be jazzed to put an ad in the paper saying we should bring back the death penalty, too. Of course, once the truth came to light, my opinion with regards to the boys would change. My opinion with regards to what the penalty should be for gang rape would remain the same.
The boys' were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The information they volunteered to detectives (and witnesses) early in the investigation was actually proof that they were guilty, because what they said regarding a rape and items which were stolen from the victim were facts not known to investigators at the time, but only later were corroborated by the victim's physical examination and by evidence found at the scene, on the boys, their clothing, and in their homes. A multi-racial jury came to a solid verdict after a lengthy trial. The later "not guilty" determination was made on purely technical grounds. The declaration of "innocence" is a myth manufactured by the media and perpetuated by a biased documentary.
So him supporting miss Hudson and family for free for over a year is hearsay?
There was a civil rights case brought against the Trump family that resulted in a consent decree
😂😂😂
Sera, let me ask you this...
Were you actually aware at the time that the police coerced the confessions of those five youths?
Come now, please be truthful in your answer.
(I have an inkling as to how you might respond, and I rather think your answer would be an evasion of the core question.)
First, it has nothing to do with what anyone was aware of, or what anyone might believe. It was a matter of due process, guaranteed by the constitution.
And second, I am opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances. There are no exceptions for me. And to answer what might fairly be your next question, it’s not because I have sympathy for killers, but because it is beneath my dignity to take a human life. If Charles Manson had hanged himself in prison I would not have cried a tear, but I am not an instrument of death.
This post is nothing but distorted talking points. Not perceptive at all
People keep getting on Donald Trump for the restrictions, but seem to forget that he was a teenager at the time. It's not like he was the person setting the rules, or even enforcing them, he was just the boss's son on a summer job, but Hillary kept harping on that like it was somehow his doing. Meanwhile "something something super predators who must be brought to heel" was during her co-Presidency.
Yeah, I’m somewhat supportive of Trump, but that situation with the Central Park Five is hard to forgive...
Exactly. Trump the anti-war guy is the greatest contradiction I see. 100% certain Trump WOULD NOT BE SENDING CLUSTER BOMBS to Ukraine. And yet the "traditional" lefty ant-war types are nowhere to be found. Total insanity. The establishment dems are totally coopted by the MIC as are the rhinos. Some SICK s-h-eye-t.
There's probably quite a bit of truth in what you say - Trump is a Democrat and the Republicans are weak. I think run of the mill Republicans have been looking for someone who loves this country and will try to do right by it for decades now, and Trump said, "You've tried all the rest and see where it got you. What do you have to lose?" So people took a chance.
Imagine what would happen if the Republicans actually ran a conservative in the vein of Trump? Trump would be toast. Instead, they gave us Bush #6 (DeSantis). So lots of folks are going to stick with the guy who did what he said he'd do.
I still favor the upraised-middle-finger theory for Trump's )very qualified) victory .
Very qualified because Hillary got substantially more votes. The Electoral College is an offense against democracy.
Charles, you certainly have the right to question the existence of the Electoral College, but it yet remains and represents a rather elegant resolution of some very thorny underlying questions.
Please note, sir, that every, at least to my knowledge, "pure" democracy in history has devolved into an oligarchical, extremely violent tyranny given the inevitable collision between freedom and governance.
You are describing what is happening in the US with the help of the Electoral College
Why would you prefer a system that makes 47 or 48 states non-existent? Doing away with the electoral college would put the election solely in the hands of California and New York. Places like Vermont and Alaska would cease to exist as far as politics goes and all the money that entails. This country is immense, with a vast array of industries, views, religions and cultures. Our Electoral College allows all those states to have a say in the outcome of the election. We are a country in name but we are individual states in practice and each state gets a say in the election.
The Electoral College already puts the presidential election in the hands of a few states. States with few electoral votes or those that are reliably red or blue. That leaves the election in the hands of a few swing states. As it now the vote of a Republican in a blue state or a Democrat in a red state basically don’t count. If we had a nationwide popular vote all of the Democrats in red states or Republicans in blue state could pool their votes. Candidates might campaign all over the country instead of only in a few swing states.
Thankfully, Florida has more EC votes than NY now.
You're an offense against those of us with over two brain cells. Shutup. Go protest something stupid like gluten, ya fucking dope.
Ya ain't got time for that, eh? 😂 Sometimes I think we should all take this approach!
The conservative would get crushed before he was out of the gate. Remember what happened to Ted Cruz when he was the last man standing in 2016? He's a smart guy and an expert debater and Trump easily carved him up. Now they're looking at DeSantis, and if he ever confronts Trump the same will happen to him. Trump's weakness? Age. So far he's held it together but, in the words of Charles Barkley, "Father Time is undefeated".
But Democrats didn't figure that out in 2020 election.....
ha i have said something similar. TRump ran as a Republican because he saw no one was using the poarty so decided to take it over.
Exactly. It was an empty shell.
yeah the interesting thing that came of that is that in doing so Trump wove a lot, not all, of their themes to his core concepts. and of course what we found out is the Republicans never really believed in any of those things they had been saying for decades.
Bravo. I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
Donald Trump was/is left of Bill Clinton, Democrat Luminary. (IMHO)
Side note: This is first ever comment on Substack. This is, by far, the most informed, respectful, and thoughtful place of exchange that I've been in.
.
Wow! This is an amazing viewpoint! I stopped being a Republican for roughly the same reasons. At the same point as you, and for the same reasons, I came to the conclusion neither party was speaking for their constitutes. I don't like the machine behind both parties that continues this relentless attack on The Peope and I will join with any group of Ludites willing to break it! Thank you for your honesty.
This is one of the most perceptive comments about Trump I have ever read
How does a person with principles support ANYONE who has none? Just askin’…
So banning abortion is a liberal Democrat’s position?
I actually don't know Trump's position on abortion (was it to reverse rose or have it actually outlawed - big difference), but to clarify, sending it back to the states is not banning it. For those who find this as serious an issue as they make out, moving to a state that allows it is a relatively easy solution...thus the beauty of Federalism.
I find it odd that people who are absolute purists on free speech are ok with other people in my state regulating my daughter’s personal medical care.
So women just need to move to have bodily autonomy? Howsabout states that ban men from getting boner pills? Should men 'just move' if they want to be full citizens? No male is EVER going to face this kind of decision and you're a monster to demand that women leave their homes.
As for Trump's position on abortion, he certainly appointed only people who want to ban abortion and he ran in the political party that makes abortion bans THE key policy. There is no good reason for you to pretend ignorance on this issue. You obviously hate women and want us locked out of public life entirely but are too much of a fucking coward to actually SAY that, a trait you share with Confessed Rapist and Woman-Hater Matt Taibbi.
Karen, I would engage you in this, had you demonstrated some control over your emotions which lead you to put assertions in my post that do not exist. Not to mention being laden with false equivalencies, ad hominem attacks, and general troll behavior.
As it stands, I know where this "conversation" would go and I'm not interested. Demonstrate some objectivity and I'm happy to respond with substance.
There's nothing to 'engage' with the likes of you. You are a malicious idiot.
Who did Matt Taibbi confess to raping? I’m a subscriber and have been reading Matt (and reading about him) for many years, long before he began publishing on Substack. The Rolling Stone years. I’ve never heard this accusation. Was this a big story I missed? Or should I say, was this a Big Story I Missed?
In his book ‘the eXile.’ He and his partner described dozens of sexual assaults they committee in Russia. See here: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-taibbi/u-s-journalist-faces-sexual-harassment-furor-over-memoir-idUSKBN1CX0QC
Does bodily autonomy include deciding whether or not to have unprotected sex? Becoming pregnant (aside from extremely rare cases of rape) isn't the equivalent of getting struck by a bolt of lightning.
MEN cause pregnancy. If you don’t like abortion get a vasectomy or, better because you’re obviously a fan of Confessed Rapist Matt Taibbi, leave all women alone.
Anna Khachiyan from the Red Scare pod put her finger on this 2-3 years back now, in identifying most of the anger at Trump to be almost totally aesthetic. Trump the candidate backed some traditionally liberal/left policies like reshoring and insurance and infrastructure (Greenwald loves to point this out).
It was Trump's personality and character and style that people found repellent, and used that as an excuse to use plenty of official lies about him being a Russian double agent, etc., to try to take him down. Ironically, many of the pundits that most hate Trump became a mirror image of his "ass hole right here on my face, take a look" persona, sometimes to an even greater degree!
Yes, and style was a lot of what these people loved about Obama, too.
Obama was the fucker who turned me into a Revolutionary.
My favorite was how Candidate Obama pledged to halt the illegal NSA spying on Americans, then President Obama expanded it. And also expanded the use of killer robot planes, even to assassinate American citizens. Ask a current Democrat to even try to defend any of that shit, and a room quickly falls silent.
People I know are astounded when I say Obama is a fucker and I then give reasons. They still feel Saint Obama, which makes me vomit.
I think it most interesting that Obama dismissed Russia as a threat with the one liner "The 80's want their foreign policy back" and the left as well as the media went wild. Trump wins and all of a sudden Russia is the biggest threat to democracy in our lifetime.
Obama is the poster child for all show, no go.
I have sometimes taken to calling Obama "Black Jesus" to Democrat types who have forgotten their liberal ideals. One even tried out "racism!" on me. I noted that Dallas radio host Randy Galloway called the white, red-haired Cowboys coach Jason Garrett "Red Jesus" and no one ever accused him or any kind of -ism, not religious, not race, not nothing. Red Jesus was just a funny joke. Black Jesus is serious shit, because the believers were sniffing their own farts like on that South Park episode.
No, they'll just start shouting "BUT TRUMP!!!"
Yes! All the liberals protesting the invasion of Iraq under Bush went silent once Obama was in the White House. So much for principle. Now that Michelle loves Bush, his war crimes are forgotten. Hell, they even love Darth Vader Cheney and his fascist daughter now.
They gave themselves away when that infamous sign showed up at the pink hat march stating “if Hillary were president, we’d be at brunch.” They don’t give a shit what Washington does around the world or even domestically as long as the person committing the crimes does so with panache. Look what Obama did to civil liberties. They don’t care.
Trust me when I tell you the real left has not changed during all this insanity. We’ve been calling these fools out all along, but our voices are not amplified by the corrupt media.
No ,people loved the fact he was an eloquent negro. One that spoke of all things Marxist. We have an eloquent negro too. Thomas Sowell. I'd love to see a conversation between those two.
Sowell is not just eloquent, but intelligent and informed. The latter 2 are more important to me.
Wgat;s Sowell's strongest intellectual argument in favor of the Confederacy, since you're a fan of the guy?
No, for me it was claiming Mexican immigrants, my former students and their families, were rapists and drug dealers, claiming falsely that Muslims celebrated in NJ on 9/11, promoting the lie that Obama was not born in the US, saying white supremacists were fine people, saying the press was the enemy of the people just like Hitler did, trying to strongarm Zelensky into looking for dirt in his political opponent, monetizing the office of the presidency.
If Trump is so repellent then why was his teevee show a hit?
Because people like to watch cruelty, and Trump was a master at lopping off someone's head with the "You're fired!" sword each and every week. He was perfect for reality teevee, because he knew from pro wrestling how to work the audience.
He was only repellent when he exposed the elites and couldn't be controlled. He was a money maker, so who cares about any of the rest of it? The elite still behave that way... Roman Polanski, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chelsea's husband... I could create quite a list.
Because he was playing a character-or so we thought, on TV. It turns out that he was playing himself naturally. His TV show was a hit b/c it played to the WWE fan demographic-gauche, in your face, no nuance or deeper explanation required. That appeals to a certain segment of American society that cuts across ethnic lines.
I only ever saw clips. I don't watch TV now for over 20 years. I do youtube and some other free streaming services. I thought the show was cruel, morally degraded and sick.
He wasn't repellant until he dared to challenge the lies of the permanent government and their media allies.
Never watched his tv show. I don’t find it entertaining to watch people being humiliated. I do find it strange that he apparently loved to say “you’re fired” on his show but didn’t have the guts to do it in real life. He fired people via tweet or press conference or sent someone else to do the dirty work. Typically of a bully
It only takes 10 million or so for a reality-TV game-show to make MASSIVE dough.
You don't know anything about that industry, eh?
Stop trolling.
Hi, Bill. I'm just looking for intelligent conversation.
Good to know!
I don't think Trump ever changed, but his coverage in the media sure did. If you look at old stories about him, he really was not portrayed as a monster, or a POS. That only changed when they finally realised, "OMG. He might actually take power." It was then that the literal hate propaganda went on full blast.
The hate we see for him now is a tribute to the power of propaganda.
I've seen some old Letterman episodes from way back in which he playfully eggs Trump on to run for president. No signs from Letterman or the cheering audience that they thought he was some kind of monster.
Bill, you and Literally Mussolini are 100% on it. Anyone who was at least a teenager in the 80s saw Trump as a flamboyant, fun, kind of ridiculous, totally harmless blowhard. People born in the 90s never saw that guy, they only have seen the MAGA hero/defender or the evil Russian spy rapist, depending on where they consume their media.
No, it changed when he called the MIC liars.
And when it became clear that he was not going to fight Russia and Kim the way Hillary would have!
I think the coverage changed when his ambitions did. It's one thing to be a reality TV celeb, it's another to be president. Everyone would get treated differently by the media if they pivoted from innocuous entertainer to most powerful politician in the country. He wasn't ranting about Mexicans or trying to steal elections when he was on The Apprentice.
Another fucking idiot. Go away.
Sounds like Zelensky to me!
He was a joke, before - mainly because he had little power.
When discussing the mass of the American public, always go with stupid.
Americans are the dumbest people in human history.
I wouldn't go with stupid...I would suggest a lack of focus and inquisitiveness.
Just how many "average" Janes and Jacks would have the interest in some of the discussions on these pages?
If you're too lazy to take your duties as a citizen seriously, then you don't suffer from a lack of focus.
You suffer from criminal amounts of stupidity.
This is one of the more incisive observations I have seen someone make in this comments section over the years. Focus and inquisitiveness are indeed characteristics that many “regular” people do not have-but it doesn’t make them moral inferiors. Frustrating to talk politics with-absolutely!
Nope.
Americans are the dumbest people in human history. This involves more than just a lack of focus.
This is unchecked stupidity.
It doesn't help that the "message board threaded comment" format sucks major ass, though, you know?
Exhibit A for the mass media-caused psychosis we call Trump Derrangment Syndrome.
Come on! You think coke-addled GW Bush was any better? Or did you actually like seeing him strut around a US warship's deck in a borrowed flight suit with his crotch sticking out at you while mumbling idiotic jingoistic taglines? You folks really need to check your prior positions against your current ones.
Apparently coke is popular in the White House even to this day. I was originally a supporter of the Bush family being from Texas, but the more I looked into 9-11 and the military industrial complex, the more sick to my stomach I got. Except for Trump, every President since World War II has been a Neocon and has placed the young men of this country in peril.
It's not just American young men who have been placed in peril as you say, it's million of civilians all over the world who have died, actually killed, by your "young men". And all that for the benefit of the elites, the MIC and the sick aspirations of deep state and your neocons.
Until Americans care about people in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somali, just to name a few. Nothing will change.
Several hundred thousand people on all sides have been killed in the Ukraine, in reality a proxy war ON Russia, but almost no one cares in the US as it is not their "young men" who are dying.
Thank you, Tim, for that awesome reminder of what a gopher looks like when he tries to preen like a peacock. It was better than Benny Hill. Do you think Rove was 100% for or against the codpiece? Trump and Bush 2 both sucked as Presidents, but Bush 2 was FAR worse.
Obviously you know nothing about Trump. Dad and I decided years ago that there is no point in explaining him, nyc or anything else to people who decided he was the savior. It would be laughable if it wasn't so awful.
Bitter women who confused trump with their ex husbands.
The media is all ex-cia, etc and Operation Mockingbird is still in effect. Notice the monologs contain the exact same verbiage!
I would contend that the --- has been influencing world events of every sort since November 22, 1963.
It was the trigger that exposed already existing policy preferences/tactics. The frog was boiling slowly until Trump was elected. Rather than keep their heads down, the Marxist wing of the democrat party let loose and exposed themselves. Once that happened...they needed to keep it up, or lose.
They realized that Left-Libertarian is a contradiction of terms. It’s not possible to get everyone to behave and march in the way *THEY* want, at least not voluntarily. Noam Chomsky revealed his inner Stalinist about the coof dart. “Deny the antivaxxers groceries” -Chomsky (the so-called “anarcho-syndicalist”). All that’s left is tankie communism. They are top left on the political compass.
And the fascist wing of the Republican Party was free to fly its flag without shame and normal Republicans are powerless to rein them in.
Sigghhh.... Can we please try to have intelligent discussion and not resort to worthless tropes? When Iseesomeone use the term fascist, I right away call bs, as they typically have no idea what that means and who is truly practicing it
I know what fascism is and I know who is pushing the US in that direction and it is Trump and the MAGA crowd
I suspect you don't know what fascism is.
Exactly. You don't. You are just supporting liberal platitudes and you have no idea what fascism is. Trump and MAGA lean populist, and actually are anti- fascist if anything. And not in the brown shirt way of antifa who misuses that label
I’ll admit that Bernie and Trump are both populist.
But
If you are so put off by the word facist, consider these Trump characteristics. He admires Putin, Orban, MBS, Duterte. He repeatedly called the press the enemy of the people. No matter what you think of the press, you have to admit that is a direct Hitler quote. He expected DOJ to act as his personal legal team and got rid of FBI directors and AGs who wouldn’t play along. He demonized Muslims and immigrants and people of color the same way Hitler demonized Jews. The current anti trans and anti gay atmosphere is also reminiscent of Nazi Germany. I have done a lot of reading about totalitarianism and I stand by my characterization of Trump and his MAGA acolytes
My Canadian prime minister has openly admired Xi Jinping's "basic dictatorship", so he deserves your "fascist" label then. More likely, he's described (politely) as a narcissistic authoritarian.
None of those things make a person Fascist. I suspect you've never read Hitler and can't point to where he actually said that quote, because people like you who casually fling around the word Fascist think of anything actually written by Nazis between 1920 and 1945 to be like the Necronomicon, where if you even utter a few words you'll summon demon Nazis from Hell or something.
Maybe look up what Orwell had to say about the misuse of the word Fascist.
I don't care HOW GOOD her campaign was, I surely wasn't going to allow another Clinton in the Whitehouse. Scheming, lying, no-good people like the Clintons are far more crooked than Trump.
Exactly!! And there were many Centrist/Libertarian minded Democrats who felt the same way but they were shouted down as well...Hillary is a thoroughly unlikeable, unqualified grifter who screamed "I am Woman, Hear me Roar" while at the same time riding the coattails of a man to accomplish what she never could have on her own merits!
Donald Trump has many faults but he was also generally liked and admired in mainstream circles for much of his career. The fact that the Left turned on him SO brutally, SO quickly, told me everything I needed to know - his candidacy was a danger to TPTB on BOTH sides of the aisle and that is why all of them united against him in such spectacular fashion! Same reason that they all united around the thoroughly corrupt Joe Biden - he is in "the club" and "the club" must be protected at all costs!
And THAT is where all of the so-called Liberals went...back into the clubhouse, with their tails between their legs - because for most of them, it was, sadly, NEVER about actual principles! It was always about protecting "their place" and "their people" regardless of what they did!!
Of course it was never about principles. Remember what Phil Ochs said about liberals. It's as true today as it was back in the sixties. "Ten degrees to the left of center in good times, ten degrees to the right if it affects them personally."
Love the comment, but please leave dear Helen Reddy out of it. Besides, I think Hillary was a bit more like "I am Woman, write me the check"
Oh, no disrespect intended towards Helen Reddy! My contempt is reserved for women like Hillary Clinton, Jane Fonda, or Kamala Harris, who scream feminist talking points all day long but never actually live them out in their own lives!
Leftists didn't like Hillary any more than you do.
To everyone that complains to me that Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump, I merely observe that there were literally thousands of times that Hillary could have iced her chances of becoming president...a word here, a gesture there, a visit to a state with a meaningful constituency.
Her failure to do is an abject lesson to all candidates for any position in our system of governance. Arrogance is a turn-off. Insults to constituencies are vote losers. Graciousness to opponents is common decency.
The degree to which she and her advisors believed their own lies was astonishing.
I am in the camp that thinks that Trump one because he took on the existing power structure. And I am in the camp that thinks, with more than ample confirming evidence, that the power structure, labeling itself "The Resistance" rose up like a monolith and spent Trump's four years implementing the "insurance policy" that disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok mentioned in his e-mail to fellow agent Lisa Page.
I end up, today, wondering what, if anything, it takes to press charges of for the illicit abuse of office under the color of authority. There are more than a handful from that curious time that needs their fates be decided by an objective jury of their peers.
Ok but you can’t seriously claim Trump was gracious in defeat
Look up under the color of law in the code. Wow is that some punishable shit.
Yep..It was meant to hurt.
Why aren't Comey, McCabe, Baker, Strzok, and Page in the docks for their absolutely odious and traitorous crimes against our citizens and insults to our Constitution, our institutions and our laws?
<Sigh> I wish I could force my brain to see things in such simple, clear-cut terms.
Along these same lines, I identify as a classic Liberal. I feel disillusioned, confused and angry about the Democratic Party’s movement to embrace Orwellian speech and other anti-freedom “woke” policies.
But.... here’s the thing:
I can’t just take off my Liberal mantle, say “it was swell while it lasted,” and move on to another political faction. There’s nowhere else to go.
Because, I never CHOSE to be a Liberal, I simply came this way. I don’t feel like it’s a changeable quality.
I was raised in a fairly conservative family. Liberal views were not instilled in me at a young age or at any time at all, really. But I was born with a critical, analytical nature - over time, I recognized that my brain best made sense of the world through classic liberal ideals.
Believe me - I read, I research, I question, I ponder, I consciously endeavor to look for truth over personal comfort. Alas, to no relief.
Here’s the thing about Liberals that is maybe not being articulated - while we are upset about certain elements of the Democratic Party platform, overall it’s still the party that’s reflects most of our general beliefs.
So while I wasn’t a big fan of Hillary, nor did I care whether it was ”time for a woman”, I voted for her in 2016 because she was the candidate who had the platform in most congruence with my political views.
I guess I’m a realist. I don’t believe in protest voting - I continue to partially blame the Ralph Nader Campaign for the terrible damage done to the US under the Bush-Cheney Administration.
And listen - I’m not happy that this is how I make voting decisions, I’m not cool with any of the current choices afforded the American public - I LONG FOR for a better alternative, but I don’t see one.
RFK Jr. represents most of the classical liberal views. Unfortunately the corporate media demonizes him, and those who never bother to stray outside the propaganda have no idea.
You don't have to give up being a liberal.
What you have to give up is the continual buying into the bullshit that both political parties have to offer, and the additional layers of nonsense that the candidates pile on top.
You can start this process by parsing out the facts before coming to conclusions. You have to be resigned to the fact that sometimes the facts aren't supportive of your politics, and have to be strong enough to allow the facts to mold your solutions.
Far too many people who hold the microphone or get published in journals are dealing from stacked decks or palming cards to achieve some advantage. For example, I read in the Guardian today a piece excoriating the Supreme Court for exercising authority. The article focused on this session's hot-button cases. But it was quickly clear that the author either had not read or didn't understand the opinions of the Court, or those of the concurring or dissenting.
Just how undemocratic can it get when the Supreme Court advocates that it is time for Congress to weigh in on matters political? The audacity of those right-wing justices daring to apply what the Constitution holds to be essential to our liberties !! Unspeakable! Their tyranny is excruciating!
And how many of the Guardian's readers will take the time to comprehend how shallow and sophomoric the author was being
Not a one. Can you say echo chamber. Those that read that rag, are steeped deeply in their confirmation bias. " it says right here I am always right"!
So you’ll gleefully remain the problem because your ox hasn’t been gored yet.
If anyone tells me now is not the time to vote third party, they better run as fast as they can away from me.
For me being a Liberal was about Class politics.......not identity politics.
The real reason that HC lost is that she isn’t any less disgusting than Trump and she has the personality and demeanor of a condescending, privileged and arrogant war monger. Other than that she’s fine.
but it was THE LAST straw. there's a bunch of others that mostly come down to the Blob's belief that they are entitled to screw things up. ooops I meant to say govern.
She has been dead long timd
I loved watching Trump driving both the Republican and Democrat parties crazy. To me it was pretty simple- the regular person was saying F you to the establishment of both parties.
As the Democrat power elite is protected by a ring of professionals, academics, and media types who have pretty nice lives no matter how the other 91% of the country is suffering, Trump is protected by a ring of small-business millionaires—in "real-world" sectors like construction, real estate, car and boat dealership—who came up straight out of the working class and are unapologetically proud of and defend the freedom to enjoy their hard-earned high-decibel, high-carbon, steak-and-booze lifestyles. That kind of wealth seems within one generation's reach of the working class (including immigrants) and is the unrefined, high-octane American Dream. Most Democratic voters now are riding high on a cushion of several generations of such wealth that distances them from its "dirty" roots.
Some truth to this. The Team D base is the PMC, with various minorities as junior partners.
The Team R base is Local Gentry, with white Evangelicals as junior partners.
Local Gentry, exactly.
FWIW, Local Gentry are often NOT self-made. That guy who inherited his Dad's insurance agency or a factory making car parts both qualify as "Local Gentry", although many Local Gentry are in fact self-made or have expanded their inheritances.
Still, the biggest difference between the income stream of Local Gentry and that of the PMC is that Local Gentry are more tied to a specific location and to ownership of assets.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/trump-american-gentry-wyman-elites/620151/
What is the PMC?
Professional Managerial Class
It was satisfying to watch her lose, I say this as former 'D' voter. But it was instructive to watch people melt down after she lost. The friends I knew who didn't melt down over Donald are the same that didn't melt down over covid. Funny that.
I agree 100% with B.C. I lost many friends over Trump and they were the same people who screamed about any rejection of the vaxx. What's really sad is that these same (Baby Boomer-age) folks claimed to be "anti-establishment" during our salad days. They now claim that I'm the one who has changed my politics, when all I see is that they were never really anti-establishment and are now revealed as dedicated leftist authoritarians. In fact one of them stated that there is no such thing as left authoritarianism!
It makes sense to question authority, but to be anti establishment just to be anti establishment is adolescent. At one time we were told not to trust anyone over thirty. Now, we ourselves are way over 30, and I, for one, have gained respect for what is learned over a lifetime of experience and that people who have gained expertise from years of study and experience might be worth listening to
That’s how you know it’s time for the dry cleaning bag.
Good observation re: covid. But how do you explain the fact that you've probably lost friends (who you thought were intelligent) over the path of the Dem Party since 2016 and their willingness to demonize anything remotely different than their own subjective views?
There is no explanation for the loss of almost all of my former Dem friends. They are the losers that all got clot shots. Dumbfucks.
They trust the MSM and cannot question what is put before them. Other than that I really don't know. Most of them were more my husband's friends than my own and they would constantly call each other over something on Colbert or something Trump said. When he died I had a good excuse to 'lose' their numbers along with his phone.
She is the most vile evil person (she is not a woman) ever to run. Thank god for Trump because not one of the Republican candidates in 2016 would have taken her on in the way Trump did.
Hillary destroyed Libya, (it was her project) just to get cred for her presidential run.
Evil is not too strong a word. That's her. And Bill.
She did, unnecessarily, destroy Libya. Obama was the President, however, and it should be remembered that he greenlighted it.
Obama said, "I was 51/49" (on "liberating" Libya)
He later said that that not planning for the aftermath was the "greatest mistake" of his presidency.
I find it impossible to believe that no one thought about the aftermath, his remarks are simply not credible. The destruction of order there and the ensuing chaos was his goal.
Yes, he greenlighted the destruction and so is legally and morally culpable. But it was still Hillary's evil plan. Her, Rice and Power. The Three Fates.
Obama is a moral monster who killed little children in Waziristan on just his third day in office, and then never stopped doing it. Just days before he left office he bombed Libya yet again.
The greatest mistake of Obummer's presidency was no prosecution of Wall Street. They committed the largest heist ever known to man --- it took $29 TRILLION in bailout AND they got to keep all the 18 million homes they stole with forged documents.
I hate that man with all of what resides inside me. FUCK OBAMA!
If you want to prosecute "Wall Street", make room in their cells for government regulatory agencies that forced banks into making loans they would never have made. Make room for the ratings agencies that rated these pulverized loans "AAA", paid for by the banks and given monopoly authorization by the government. Make room for Freddie and Fannie for expanding their briefs to absorb loans they knew were no good, and for Barney Frank who, cognizant of the problem, said "let's roll the dice". Well, we did. I know it's a mystery to some of you, but the reason "Wall Street" is not in jail is because they followed the rules the government laid out, as did the banks. I was in the middle of this and saw it from every side. This is a problem that never needed to happen, another gift of our elected representatives.
I have said over and over that I saw the government collude with Wall Street to allow them to continue the crimes to steal my home with forged documentation.
The ONLY thing I disagree with you about: they didn't "force" the banks to do anything. The banks WILLINGLY made those horrible loans because they had produced a fraud scheme so large that it will curl your toes when you understand it.
But yes, there are many many people who belong in prison for life.
Let me tell you a story. I was on a small community bank board. The OTS (regulators) performed their usual audit and first told us the good news - we earned a high score that would ensure our borrowing facilities and reassure our depositors and investors. Then they told us that, regardless of how we ran the bank, they were going to give us a subpar score if we did not increase minority lending. We never discriminated in the slightest but there were few minority borrowers in our largely homogenous white community. We needed that rating and they were, after all, the Feds. Our CFO went door to door in a poor Hispanic community asking if anyone wanted to borrow money. The loan that earned us our higher rating was actually to a wealthy individual with an italian surname in a millionaire's neighborhood. The regulator recognized the name as latin-sounding and gave us the higher rating. This is your government at work.
I'm pretty sure prison isn't enough.
So just throw up our hands? And put the squeeze on “regular” people when they make stupid decisions financially? ( I’m thinking student loan forgiveness Biden wanted pushed through) kind of...let’s go after stupid kids who took on a ton of debt, but because everything in finance is so intertwined with our lives..we’ll let’s just let the Ivy educated (you know...the best and brightest) off scot-free in relation to their idiotic decisions . I mean it only cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars.
Look I don’t agree with the student loan thing, but it’s not just a happy accident to our “elite” get to watch regular people fight amongst themselves about exponentially lower dollar amounts and the effect they have on our economy. We’re fighting the fight for them.
I cringe because I’m not a populist, Marxist, any kind of ist. That’s not me. It’s just become crystal clear that the best and brightest in our country are really neither of either descriptor. Shits getting old.
In talking to a student at Occupy, what I didn't realize----students now have to sign a "Master Promissory Note." This note has no fixed amount. The uni then just adds to the debt whenever they want to. One gal told me she caught the Univ of WA adding $8000 AFTER she had withdrawn from the school. So, how and why could they do that? She won in court and didn't have to pay the $8000, but holy shit!
SS, could you recommend the best reading sources for summary looking back on the episode and outcomes?
LT, I haven't seen anything that covers the subject well. My experience in this area (and I've only touched on it) was all first hand. I detailed a lot of what was going on in quarterly newsletters to our firm's wealth management clients from 2005-2009, but I'm retired now and not even sure where those are. Maybe I should write something - it's a story that is misunderstood and mistold a lot.
Never happened. Sorry. The community reinvestment act was not responsible. You should’ve educated yourself in this at the time.
I can't tell if you're joking or out of touch with the real world.
He also kept Bush's wars going and started five new ones. He increased drone attacks 10 times. He killed hundreds of civilians, that's admitted. It was probably thousands of them. And for what?
Obama is a psychopath, a human monster, and a war criminal.
So he destroyed TWO countries then.
Give this man another Peace Prize!
I knew he was a fraud when he went along with Hillary’s support of the coup in Honduras at the very start of his presidency. Was not long after the elevation of that murderous regime that desperate parents sent their children north on their own.
Those who decry all the refugees coming to the US need to take a closer look at the degradation the US forces on innocent people in the name of corporate control of those countries. Fuck any pol that supports imperialism abroad.
Planning for the aftermath requires a proper understanding of the status quo.
Libya was a well-run xxproblemxx edit country with a terrorist problem. Keeping Gadafi was the obvious solution. But creating the perception that Gadafi was the problem and the terrorists were the victims left CIA/UK/FRance HRC and Obama all completely unable to make the right judgements.
The gold dinar, was a huge 'threat' to the dollar.
Mo was also a "threat" to Israel. (in their view)
The standard of living in Libya was the highest in Africa.
He was never going to "slaughter" his "own people" either.
The "humanitarian intervention" was lies all the way down I'm afraid.
No - I think conspiracy theorists made that gold idea up afterwards.
Much as they said Bitcoin was going to bring down the USD.
Fact is that Roman coinage was still in use in 1000AD, 500 years after the end of the Roman empire.
But yes to the rest.
Don't know for sure. For sure though, any threat to the dollar is 'nuked'. That's just a fact.
I can definitely believe him on that. Unintended consequences are politicians stock and trade. Sounds like a moment of unguarded honesty
Libya Schmibya. Most ACLU-style Liberals will still insist that Obama was our greatest president.
On the other hand, as she has pointed out, building democracy isn't easy. Maybe you need to be patient. Turning one of the wealthiest countries in Africa into a failed state with open air slave markets is a small price to pay for the opportunity Hillary's War gave the people of Libya to vote in democratic elections. And I'm confident that the many if not all of the thousands of Libyans who fled their war-torn country and drowned while crossing the Mediterranean took great comfort in the fact that the person most responsible for their miserable deaths was a woman.
I agree with several posters here; although I’m on my lunch break and can’t read all 2200 comments.
Basically, Assange’s leaks about Clinton, combined with the DNC perverting democracy by throwing Sander’s votes in the trash, along with the murders of Seth Rich and Shawn Olsen, caused the rift between “Democrats” and actual left-wing, or liberal, Americans. Go ahead and try to explain how the items I just listed above are exactly what propelled Trump into the White House, and watch all your “liberal” friends become your Demoncrat brownshirt hysterical blood enemies. Joe Biden and his administration are trampling free speech as Joe drools into his pudding and shits himself onstage, while his son fucks his dead brother’s wife while smoking crack and leaving a gun in a dumpster....and you will still hear, “well it’s not as bad as Trump”. A true state of cognitive collapse...at least I can still read and comment with my favorite “so-called” journalist here on Substack. Cheers Matt; keep swinging!
Probably the most succinct comment yet. Thank you for your time on your break to write a thorough explanation of why I hate the Democrats.
Love watching 2016 election results on YouTube. Priceless.
It was fabulous to watch the results in a Seattle bar, where all the idiots were triggered by my laughter! I still remember their angry entitled faces! Hahahahahahaha!
Exact same thing happened to me. I was like, “Holy Sh*t. The histrionics are a little dramatic.” and from then I was no longer a “good person” 😂
That's hilarious and sad/pathetic simultaneously.
You're drinking with the wrong crowd.
🤣🤣🤣
Because you created the disaster we’re facing. Every woman who dies because of abortion bans, every child killed in a school shooting, and every person who dies because of unchecked fossil fuel burning is your fault and you’re too much of an egoist to face that.
Said by a true Karen!
Little bit before that. You'd have to go back to the oss.
That’s the best story I’ve heard in quite some time!
Weren't your fortunate!
Does Olberman come across to you as a mentally healthy individual? He and Scarborough have ‘issues’ to say the least.
Olbermann is by far the most wild and unhinged for a big name pundit, in an unfiltered angry id sort of way, but I think he's kind of the real representative of the new-look Democratic Party, screaming partisan talking points into a camera from his basement. (See his response to a kind, well-thought out Cornel West tweet from this week.)
Scarborough is 100% angry jerk, Rachel Maddow likely holds the record for paranoid conspiracies and lies on TV in the modern era, Medhi Hasan is an obnoxious, lying bully happy to roll over anyone with zero stops at reason or basic human kindness, and Joy Reid might be the most divisive, hateful person ever on TV. Watching The View makes your brain shrivel and shrink and devolve into something subhuman. This is what we're up against. These people aren't "liberal" or "left-wing" or "democratic," and they certainly don't do news.
Reid is not only the most hateful television "thing," she's also the dumbest.
She suffers from magnificent levels of stupidity.
Affirmative Action in action
Indeed.
Reid even admitted she was a product of affirmative action, without realizing just how damning of the concept that statement was.
Thick & and unknowing. A toxic mix.
Megyn Kelly said the other day on her pod that her producers job was to “watch The View so you don’t have to”!
I love the Fifth Column guys telling her how much they detest having to even listen to the clips of The View when they come on. It made me wonder if The View would even be on TV if so many other news programs and pods didn't play their clips.
As an aside, my brother is in media and a friend/colleague used to produce The View. He lasted a year and then went back to House Hunters (HGTV)!
That is creating a hostile work environment.
He should have stuck to sports center. He was pretty good at that lol
I see that you know them too.
Know them? Know them in the sense of occasionally seeing clips of them, or getting stuck in a situation where MSNBC is on, which is like the 7th circle of hell, I guess.
Jon Stewart became something of a cultural icon showing clips of some of the more unhinged moments from Fox News. Sure, we knew it was one-sided and all of the 24-hour news networks have always been awful and toxic, but it was entertaining. Now, I keep hearing about Tucker Carlson being a unique danger and "clearly inciting violence" on his now-canceled (censored?) show. When I'd see the Carlson clip in question, it was usually provocative, maybe even mean, but required quite a bit of projection ("dog-whistling!" they scream) to get anywhere near how it was being described. Go to Twitter and watch some of Joy Reid's lowlights, which are by far more mean and extreme and gross, and wonder where Jon Stewart is with the clips of this. No, Jon Stewart has become one of them: another comedian turned against comedy, to embrace the hallelujah choir of post-liberal, illiberal "liberals" (see his bizarre cornering of Andrew Sullivan to accuse him of being a racist for a glaring, horrifying example).
Stewart's turn might be the most disappointing. He went from the man whose criticisms of Crossfire raised important questions about media behavior to a man who is more interested in promoting the elite's narrative.
Meanwhile, Carlson (who was on Crossfire at the time), has become a man more willing to push back against that narrative.
It is amazing that i can no longer stomach Jon Stewart, a man I used to idolize. Sad days indeed.
It's his sincerity schtick that's so repellant.
Where passing ruffians can say ni to old women. . .
You always think these times can’t get any weirder, but they do, every single day.
Add to that today's interview with Andrew Tate by Carlson, the dumbest Duo I've ever seen.
Wow*. I was totally impressed with Andrew Tate. And I think Tucker is amazing.
*waving to the only liberal elite on this thread
people can watch it themselves now and decide for themselves.
and that - to address Matt's question - is EXACTLY why so-called liberals have suddenly become fans of censorship.
The most crazy are the Never-Trumpers. Signed, Ex-Democrat, now solidly independent
Mika beats him. Among other things.
🤣 ever since Mika divorced her husband and married Scarborough, she’s worn a permanent scowl. She’s either trying to appear continuously ‘concerned", but more likely her ‘knickers are permanently twisted’
Her father is Zbigniew Brzezinski. This is neocon insanity and the Dems are 100% aligned for WW3
Hey there Janine. While you might have left out some y’s and s’s I hear ya kiddo loud and clear. We don’t listen to each other’s stories anymore. We don’t debate, and it’s going to kill us in the end. That’s truly where our problem lies.
And he likes it!
Trump literally drove him insane. Now he is on to Putin, and has been for some time.
Thanks for the update 👍🏻not a watcher - too painful 😂 that said, he ought to be careful as Putin might ‘whack’ him whereas Trump only throws a mean tweet.
You’re right, though I think one could see this partisan lack of principle in the way the antiwar movement instantaneously collapsed amongst mainstream Democrats the instant Obama came into office. In 2015 Blinken gave the Saudis the green light to begin bombing Yemen and when I started telling liberals about this their reflexive reaction ( every single time) was to rationalize it, because Obama was responsible and so must have had a good reason. And the same thing happened with drone strikes— nothing Obama did could be criticized.
Great point. Obama ran as a leftie populist, but governed closer to a smarter and more sympathetic George Bush.
Obama did more to neuter the antiwar movement than anything Dick Cheney ever could have done, not if they made him Supreme Leader For Life.
Cult of personality.
So Obama made war cool again...
No, they're not resisting and they punch down. But they feel good doing it, which is the really sick thing.
I've come across @BrooklynDadDefiant. He lives in his own little world.
There's been suggestions, and maybe even some proof — although I haven't followed it closely — that @BrooklynDadDefiant, as well as a couple of other big #resistance "influencers" on Twitter are well-paid by a DNC-aligned super-PAC.
And yes, they're not "resisting," they're the Kingdom of Karens demanding to speak to the manager on the biggest scale possible, and unfortunately, Clinton, Biden, Obama and the entire mainstream of the Democratic Party (and the entire west really) have answered that call, to become the smiling omniscient manager, here to save you from that pesky democratic process and the free speech of working and middle class types upset with the status quo (i.e. the "deplorables").
I do think Trump deranged almost half of the country to the point they went overboard on everything and haven’t come back. Look at the “racism is everywhere!” hysteria; the ADL and SPLC transitioning into propaganda orgs for the Democrats; MSNBC and CNN becoming way more partisan and unhinged than Fox; look at our cities embrace destructive nihilism in the name of progressive values; the constant lies about white supremacy; the reframing of 1/6 from a riot into a full blown attempted coup; the complete and utter collapse of formerly reputable mainstream media organizations like the NYT and LAT and Wapo that engage in daily attacks on people on the basis of their skin color and seem bent on starting a race war. On and on and on and on...
It's not really the #resistance in particular. It's just around that time Dem party people have started to figure out social media's potential for totalitarian level of thought control.
Both Obama and Clinton claimed to be "free speech absolutists," and were 100% in favor of an open internet ten years ago, especially Obama, who harnessed Facebook to go from a relative unknown to the president, using mostly platitudes.
When Trump did the exact same thing with Twitter they changed their tune. They didn't want someone like Trump to be able to use their toys! That's why Hillary Clinton's camp mostly created the "misinformation" scare, and why she talks about Putin and Russia almost incessantly, and Obama — that former free speech champion who's likely the puppet-master behind the current "Weekend at Bernie's" Biden disaster — does talks only about the scourge of mis/dis/mal-info and has turned his back on MLK's racial politics, and seems to embracing Ibram X. Kendi's instead.
The Resistance still cracks me up. Pathetic people changing their fb profiles and posing as if they’re fighting behind German lines. It’s just all so pompous and self-important.
It goes back further than that. I remember the fall of 1980. I was trying to gather up some friends for a pre-holiday get-together. Several of them couldn't make it; they were going downtown to protest Ronald Regan. Protest what? I asked. He hasn't done anything; he's not even in office yet. All he's done is get elected. *That's* what we're protesting, they replied. I told them, in that case you're not protesting against Regan; you're protesting against democracy. They didn't understand.
I saw similar sore-loserdom in 1988 (almost got into a fight with a guy who claimed that, since he didn't vote for him, George Bush was not *his* president), 1994, 2000, 2004 and 2008.
2016 was the exact same thing. But social media made it bigger, and mainstream media actually joined in.
#Resistance liberals have no principals. It's all party, as you correctly point out. They will never get over 2016.
I can't help but wonder if these people, when pressed, could describe what they're actually resisting. Resist what, exactly?
Resist Trump, of course! But also resist Fox News, and Republicans, or Tucker Carlson, and Elon Musk, and libertarians, and lefties and liberals who don't agree with the Democrats at all times, or reporters who write articles that don't come to the accepted conclusion or report news harmful to the Democrats, or anyone who refuses to put up the politicized-symbols-of-the-week on their social media or lawns, or people who try to ignore this, or just whatever everyone in the #resistance thinks we need to resist on a daily basis. Simple, really!
I always think one of the most sage lines about the modern, post-liberal Democrat, especially the idiot mindhive variation born in Brooklyn, coming from a King Missile song: "I want to be different, like everybody else I want to be like."
PERSIST!!!! Lol. The first indication of TDS fer sure.
Which brain do you think is more broken, the one that resists the policies of an elected president, or the one that insists a president who lost actually won? Obviously Dems/libs have their problems, but I don't understand how anyone can look at the modern political landscape and think it's the left that's resisting reality or choosing party over principles more than Trump supporters and the right. Who won the election in 2020? How many Republican voters or politicians in office acknowledge that?
I’m neither a conservative nor a Trump voter, and very much on the political left, but I think the massive, and almost totally fake, and continuing Russiagate campaign - and a million other instances of outright illiberal and often unconstitutional/illegal behavior on the part of the Democrats - is what led to the reactive madness you’re describing. It's bad, yes, but can’t be viewed in a vacuum, as the “reality resistance” is wont to do.
The Democrats shifting to become an almost totally right wing party, and absorbing all of the Bush neocons into its ranks, over the last decade is also a big part of this mess. Who needs a real resistance when one shitty party does it all?
I agree that the hype and speculation around Trump's involvement with Russia flew off the handle, but most people I know on the left accepted the key findings of the Mueller report. The report stated that Russians interfered in the election in a "sweeping and systemic fashion", that Trump tried to obstruct the investigation and his associates lied to investigators about their connections with the Russian government on numerous occasions. It led to 37 indictments and 14 criminal matters referred to other departments. But it did not show the smoking gun collusion between Trump and the Russian government that many on the left assumed it would.
But what's worse, the speculation and misinformation that swirled before the release of the Mueller Report, or the attempts to steal an election and refusal to accept the reality that Trump lost in 2020? He tried to stop legal votes from counting, he tried to stop the transfer of power to the winner, he continues to lie about it. And yet he's the front runner for the Republican Party. How is that not the larger scandal and affront to people in this country, regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum or which party you usually vote for?
Welcome to Substack--stop reading corporate news.
Ding ding ding!
So you haven't been paying attention. The mueller investigation was the fraud. They've been caught. Are you living in an alternate universe?
Been paying attention, still living in reality. Don't really care why you think the investigation was fraudulent. You also think Trump won the election so I can't take you seriously.
You say “most people on the left” agreed with the Mueller report, but you mean “resistance democrats,” who are not on the left, but have certainly made the Mueller report part of their religion, which is worship of official propaganda and intelligence, and the military-and-money-worshiping officials in Democratic Party, who are totally divorced from liberal and left-wing values (or human values like truth or justice).
I’ve never voted republican, and mostly only for democrats, but like many people, I now see the only way out is breaking this rotten two-party system, because neither party has anything to offer, and neither is better than the other.
I'm saying many accepted the Mueller report as truth, across the political spectrum. Many on the right celebrated the fact that it didn't make a "collusion" connection between Trump and the Russian government, and many on the left highlighted the parts I mentioned earlier.
Not sure how you plan to break the two party system, but it seems like Trump figured it out: be a third party candidate that gets the nomination of one of the two major parties. He was successful in a way that no third party candidate will be. Bernie almost did the same.
I also can't imagine looking at both parties and thinking neither is better than the other if you're "very much on the political left," especially with the recent Supreme Court decisions, but we apparently see things differently.
Nobody has offered a shred of concrete proof that Russia had anything to do with the DNC hack and leak operation via Wikileaks. Even Mueller himself didn't definitively say that Russia was responsible. Heck - even the CrowdStrike yo-yos couldn't go there while they were testifying under oath. The "37 indictments" that you're referencing included a bunch of guys from Russia that, when their attorney entered an appearance in the case, were almost instantly dropped under the guise of "national security." As far as I'm concerned, the entire thing was a ruse by Hillary and the DNC to cover up for the complete an utter failure that was losing the 2016 election to Trump.
Russian fingerprints are all over election interference and there's plenty of evidence. US Counterintelligence groups have been tracking Russian operations that included email phishing, social media malware, human and bot operations, mass dissemination of disinformation, attempted breaches of voter databases, targeted political campaigns, bot farms and staged rallies. If you want to learn more, read the intelligence reports, memos, court filings, case documents, testimonies and investigative news reports. Or you can choose to believe your own narrative that conveniently fits your worldview despite having no evidence or grounding in reality whatsoever.
I told you to go away, and yet here you are. Anyone, that includes you, that thinks the buffoon installed in the White House got over 100 million votes,is irreparable. Sorry. Go play with your legos.
No one but you is claiming Biden got over 100 million votes. He got 81 million, Trump got 74 million. If you still think Trump won after it's been disproven and debunked over and over, you have no credibility and aren't a serious person.
Well-put.
The word resistance evokes a frigid unwell woman having voluntary sex while maintaining victimhood, making it a perfect moniker for its target market.
"Resisting" the reality that Donald Trump won an election, and aligning with the DC blob and intelligence and military and the corporate sphere to create one of the most extreme propaganda campaigns in modern US history to "resist" this fact. Do you call that rebellion, or the existential speaking to the manager?
Good observations. There’s the claim that the so-called left pushed free expression on the way to power, but once there, jettisoned it to maintain their position. I contend that like the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man in the first Ghostbusters movie, power—think the WEF—has harnessed the old myths of the left—FDR, JFK, RFK, Woodward & Bernstein, Carter—to conceal their wicked agenda. If you object to the mass, coerced mystery injections, or the sudden notion that nuclear weapons are now Safe & Effective, or that freedom of expression is the only bulwark we have against tyranny, then you are branded a white supremacist. The Bolsheviks & Nazis conducted equally demented witch-hunts. I hope this new insanity ends much better yet I fear otherwise.
Yes. It's good to keep clear the difference between "deep state" (for lack of a better word) and its so-called "Leftists" who are actually executing a long causal chain of authoritarian leadership, on the one hand, and the generations of misled Democratic Party voters-for-fairness, on the other.
People on the Right often unwittingly conflate the two. They should also recognize the parallels with their own side.
Well stated, @Anti-Hip.. the parallel sides in which you make your reference to, is also known as the Uniparty who answer to the real power like big pharma and companies that are part of the military industrial complex. They are in the game for power and generational wealth. Keep the masses at each other's throats to blind them to the truth, which is dutifully parroted by there lackeys in MSM.
Exactly. Biden and McConnell are two sides of the same counterfeit coin.
Savvy analysis, Oceania.
Good take. Unfortunately.
There's such a long, long, list of issues that demonstrate that so many of the supposed civil libertarians and issue-focused NGOs are really just partisan Democrats. NOW cared about women until it conflicted with their desire to support Bill Clinton. The NAACP cares about black families until they demand school choice vouchers that conflicts with the interests of the Democratic party. The ACLU cares about free speech until it conflicts with transgender activists. The Anti-Defamation League cares about Jewish interests until presented with anti-semitic comments of BLM activists. AARP advocates for the interests of retired people until the Affordable Care Act needed to raid Medicare funds to make the math work.
The ADL is the most thoroughly foul of the lot, in this Jew's opinion; they've been committing more defamation than opposing or dispelling it for a good long time now, and you can count on them like clockwork to be on the wrong side of almost any issue (I mean, I'm certain they're not Holocaust-deniers, but such is their total nega-credibility otherwise, I almost wish they WERE).
Now of course in the Ukraine-O-Mania Era, they're even making excuses for full-fledged Neo-Nazis - and barely a breath after regurgitating Woke talking-points about "white supremacy", too! I think Richard Spencer, of all people, hit the nail on the head there: It's a "photographic negative" of his own ideology.
As a nonJew, I have always been puzzled by the ADL. It seems like they go out of their way to make enemies out of people who would otherwise to support their agenda.
The outward manifestation of the NeoCon/Woke/malignant narcissist/fascist pathology in a nutshell, one could say: The well-known cycle of abuse in its full, hideous flower.
Ultimately, group identity itself is the problem, and true progress in the 21st Century should mean phasing it out, not doubling down on it. Before 2020, I'd have only partly been joking when I said I wish vaccines really DID cause autism. I am very fortunate to have been born without a USB-port to what I've been calling 'the Human Hivemind' ever since I first picked up on its existence in middle-school; I wish more than almost anything I could strip it from everybody else as well.
"Ultimately, group identity itself is the problem, and true progress in the 21st Century should mean phasing it out, not doubling down on it." 🎯
Edit: I’m half Jewish - barely.
As an American who has travelled a lot and presents as Eastern European (part Romanian/Lithuanian) and has encountered incredible prejudice in the Midwest: Americans in general don’t understand that the rest of the world isn’t like them and doesn’t want to be like them. It’s especially hard for Americans to understand that there are other white people, and (gasp!) mixed asiatic/middle eastern nonetheless. Most tolerance is merely an indoctrination and it doesn’t extend very far into the grey areas.
An unappreciated (unknown anymore?) truth of the American experiment was that it was embarked upon to create a polity in which group identity (at the time most prominently religion based) was purposely sidelined. Literally declared to be off limits to how the nation would be governed. Revolutionary idea that most existing regimes/societies said would fail because no polity could have cohesion without that shared group identity. Perhaps they were right after all. :(
Families like mine are living proof to the contrary. :)
Remember also: Cornel West was wrong. The American Experiment did not "fail". It was SABOTAGED.
Agreed. Too pessimistic in that post; it is being sabotaged and has not failed. I just feel totally out of my depth in fighting it outside of influencing my small group of family and friends. Never thought I'd live in a place where politics might be existential. I hate it.
Without enemies, they would have no reason to exist.
https://forward.com/news/462916/nazi-collaborator-monuments-in-ukraine/
Or, if you like, pretend that someone other than the Ukrainian military were sporting swastikas and SS regalia. Would the NYT be tying themselves into knots to make excuses for them, especially if that Nazi insignia were worn by people that the State Department did not like?
Meanwhile, these blind party loyalists that are calling for one party tyrannical rule, label any opposition as Hitler reincarnate. Liberals have become like libertarians and also true conservatives homeless politics wise. What we have now is a uniparty full of globalists that wants endless war and total control of every aspect of life. Even the socialist heartthrob AOC votes yes on every appropriation to Ukraine to fund the globalist money laundering scheme. She’s nothing more than Lindsey graham with a wig.
Maybe some Democrats are hard core party-liners, but i bet there are a lot more Liberals like me who are baffled and deeply concerned by the new Orwellian trend. We’re here en masse, but without an organized public voice or any political agency. That gap in agency creates space that’s filled with the general assumption that everyone on the left agrees with the actions and policies of the Democratic Party. This is a mistake.
Maybe a good question is “why aren’t you old-fashioned Liberals making your voice heard?” Up to this point in my life, I’ve I done my best to participate in politics as best I can - which was/is to stay informed as a citizen and vote in every election - local and national. I have a job (scientist for a non profit environmental org - which comes with its own, separate political agenda) and kids to raise, so I can’t just put life on hold to become a full-time political activist. And I’ve looked around and there are seemingly no candidates in my area (or anywhere) who have free speech protection as part of their platform.
My only option seems to be switching parties from Democrat to Independent. But I’d much rather stay on as a Democrat and try to push my party back towards classic liberalism.
I hope this doesn’t sound like I’m whining, but I’m at a loss. How do I stand up against political censorship right now?
Great post, Stephanie. I am you in 20-25 years, winding down my career in my mid-60s, lifting my head from my work desk, and realizing the Democratic Party I (usually) favored has done a 180 on more issues than not, most painfully on free speech and other civil liberties.
I switched to Independent right after the 2020 election, and it certainly feels better than being part of an increasingly totalitarian ship. My hope is the party will return from Crazy Town one of these years. Not real confident that will happen, but it certainly won't if people like us stay on as members.
Most notably, I write to all of my federal, state, and local officials, tell them specifically why I've switched, and what would bring me back, and turn down every financial solicitation, explaining that I now contribute only to true centrist candidates from both parties.
My single voice means nothing, of course, but if and when enough of us follow suit, it will have an effect, particularly if/when their financial contributions decline significantly.
Democratic voter identification has dropped from from 36% eight years ago to 25% a couple months ago. That's close to 20 million voters. (See Gallup monthly tracking of voter affiliation.)
It doesn't feel great to be party-less, but it feels better than supporting or (lord knows) voting for the extremists who control the two major parties.
Another factor: if us voters don't "defund" the half-religion, half-corporations that masquerade as our two political parties, what else will bring the changes that are needed?
It's really hard to stand up now. Social media and the forever-memory of the internet have made it very difficult to take controversial stands and also to literally survive because your employment, career, family life, and social life are held hostage to cancellation.
We have to stay individually grounded, do what you can, pick your spots. Inoculate your children against group-think; shield them from social media.
Some of us will go balls-out, like Matt, and at least we can financially support the ones on the front line.
“I have a job (scientist for a non profit environmental org - which comes with its own, separate political agenda) and kids to raise, so I can’t just put life on hold to become a full-time political activist”
You’re making an excuse for not standing up for your political principals by saying you’re “too busy,” while the actual truth is secretly contained in your sentence.
Like you, many people who profess to support liberal values are part of institutions captured by these illiberal ideas and your own rational self interest of wanting to remain employed is the real reason. If you’ve ever bit your tongue over some unscientific ideological claptrap at work just to “go along to get along” you are the very thing you complain about.
True liberals aren’t lacking an “organized and public voice,” they are lacking a backbone.
Gee, Aaron, tell us how you've loudly espoused views at work that would get you fired because your conservative principles are far more important than your ratiional self-interest in feeding your family and paying your mortgage. C'mon, tell us how you tell your truth to bosses who think your truth is repellent.
I work at a very blue company in the bluest area of a blue state and am constantly in trouble for standing up and speaking out in all sorts of ways from refusal to state pronouns and perform land acknowledgements to kowtowing to DEI claptrap. Do I have a perfect track record? Of course not, but I fall short I know it’s on no one but myself.
Perhaps while you’re going to sleep tonight you should reflect on why my comment hit such a nerve with you.
If you don’t have a perfect track record why are you jumping on Stephanie, who signed her full name? You engaged in a nasty personal attack on someone asking a sincere question.
[applause]
You didn't hit a nerve. You hit my annoyance meter because you called her a coward. Nothing she said indicated a lack of courage; she asked how she could become more politically active while working full-time and raising kids.
I Like You But You're Crazy.gif
So, you must have pretty good job security?
You're not whining, and staying with the party and trying to push it back to sanity is an option. I don't know how realistic it is as long as they know you will keep voting for whoever has a D after their name, but this is the problem with what is essentially a two party system, with not much real difference between the parties on the things that matter. I was always an independent who typically voted Democrat. I would rather see a bunch of people leave and form a lot of third parties that actually represent their views than continue letting these two parties keep playing their games. But I suspect that my approach is just as apt to be futile as yours.
No, staying with the party and trying to push it back to sanity is not an option. Been there, tried that. (I’d like to feel hopeful about RFK, but we all know he’ll be pushed to the side by the DNC) The writing is on the wall in bold letters, we’re dealing with the Uniparty now. Our only hope is to create a viable 3rd party, though we’re quickly running out of time...
I switched from Democrat to Independent before Obama, because I saw the writing on the wall. I feel like I’ll never go back, though RFK Jr. gives me some hope. (Most likely false hope, as was the case with Bernie). These days I’m finding myself more and more in the MAGA camp, because I realize what the stakes are and I’m 100% against the globalist agenda.
Lillia
I just wrote something similar, but you put it better.
What you have now days is two groups, one group that has principles, and one that doesn’t. The group with principles stays in one political spot (wherever that is) while everyone else orbits and moves around you. It is very confusing for us folk who have stayed true to their beliefs regardless to what us played on the media or barked by politicians. I always say, a person without principle is dangerous because they can rationalize anything to be moral or just.
Yes! That's where I fall with this.
I regular get asked if I'm a "leftist." And when I say "what do you mean by that?" It's as if I'm being evasive. But I'm not. This is why I argue for the quadrant version of political viewpoints more than simple left right. We have a boatload of authoritarianism in the country, both on the right and the left.
As long as leftists advocate for government-provided freebies, they are indirectly advocating for an authoritarian government. No other way to obtain the social goodies they want. But then don’t be surprised if this is exactly where leftist ideas lead. History has clearly warned us, and yet here we are. And people shake their heads and wonder why?
This is more Bob Grant than cogent argument. A social safety net and social programs are not an infringement on personal freedom.
Your second sentence is utterly untrue. it is logically false.
Where the hell do you think the funds (the hard-earned wealth) comes from to pay for your idiotic, immoral "social safety net" comes from, donations?!?!
Legal theft (property and income taxes) is to "an infringement on personal freedom".
We have very different view of what makes up the "social contract" in a free and just society. That doesn't make my argument "logically false."
Is the paving of public roads "theft?" Libraries? Fire departments?
Yes. I apologize for calling your opinion idiotic. It is not.
But your argument that any social contract comes without cost *is* against all logic.
The "Social Contract" is live and let live governed by the golden Rule, more or less, but it is *not* a permission for Society, and Society's terrible agent the State, to violate pre-existing individual property rights. Even more importantly, it is *not* a financial burden on new human beings. We are *not* born into this world owing *any* debt, period.
That is the only basis to form a free and just human society; the Classical Liberalism (Capitalism) of the Declaration and Constitution (as properly amended).
The ones without principles also have all the money.
That doesn't really answer Matt's question, it just restates his premise.
You also ignore that they DID have free speech principles, which Matt illustrates with examples.
Why did they change? That's the question.
"Why did they change?"
1. Because they got the whip hand, and therefore suddenly became much more invested in defending the status quo.
2. Because supporting the National Security State was the price of getting the whip hand.
In politics, they got the whip hand in 1933. The change Mr. Taibbi is alluding to occurred only a few years ago. The first seriously repressive stuff I can recall was cancel culture.* Most of the participants defined themselves pretty far over on the supposed Left. Their targets were usually not rightists or conservatives but -- liberals. The peculiar thing is that the targeted liberals didn't seem to fight back.
As for liberalism and warmongering, that goes _way_ back. Just as a matter of style and fashion, the War in Vietnam (started by and carried forward by liberals) has followed almost the same story line as the War in Ukraine. In general, the previous wars were bad (except World War 2, "the Good War") but the present war is delicious, excellent, and thoroughly righteous. I wish we had some real liberals around to explain these mysteries to us.
*A friend of mine who was a radical feminist back in the day told me there was an earlier form of this called "trashing".
Fair point. I think It's probably caused by the long march through the institutions by the Far Left. They've finally reached critical mass after educating a few generations with this B.S. and thus there is key support for their agenda all through society and government.
BUT....it has still happened so quickly and completely that we are all, like Matt, struggling to make sense of what's come roaring at us. I think we must consider "outlandish" explanations such as that a powerful cabal of evil totalitarians have been operating behind the scenes for decades, even centuries. Now they are making their more brazen moves for the ultimate power they have always wanted because it's finally possible. Technology and Gramscian infiltration enable a top-down, bottom-up, turn-key suppression of billions of people.
Your first paragraph nails one cause of this. I agree. Matt wrote a profile of Marcuse a year or so ago which was very good.
However, it's no longer the "Far Left" in the traditional economic sense. It's a cultural left that almost ignores political economy and simply grifts its way through as many race and gender hustles as it can concoct -- all the while sadistically demonizing "whiteness" and white males in particular with no sense of true world history anywhere in the world or the experience in other cultures with predation, abuse, warfare, empire building or various other human indignities.
It's an utterly repugnant spectacle that any and all true liberals should be deeply ashamed by. But they aren't. They're in on the grift as participants for self-enrichment, careerist advantage or they're the useful idiots that every demagogue needs and then throws away once they've served their purpose.
the race angle is a facade as we start to see Asians and Hispanics revealed as White Supremacists" Unless White Supremacy Inc has a DEI department, "whiteness" really signifies bourgeoise. Any minority who embraces the traditional american dream loses their race card.
What "Far Left?" A Far Left would be anarchists, socialists, communists, animal-rights activists, Earth First, and so on. Such people exist but they are very few in numbers and have no visible influence.
This would be news to Bernie Sanders and AOC.
Only an American could be ridiculous and propagandized enough to believe either of them are "left" at all, much less "Far Left". Everywhere else on earth they're just garden-variety centrists at best.
The reason the long march suddenly succeeded is the full takeover of the Media. The internet lets everyone have a printing press, and that collapsed the Legacy Media's business model based on advertising. Now, Big Tech scarfs up all ad dollars. To stay afloat, the Media depends on governments and political actors who are buying "narratives". Uncensored individuals are competitors who must be squashed. Since the Left has essentially all the money, as they have the new trillion dollar industries and are allied with China, they buy the narratives.
The point is, they didn't "change." They never had the principles to begin with, many of them. So, no, I didn't ignore the question.
I think you're partly correct -- some never did and only pretended to.
But there were assumptions about censorship and freedom of the press that filtered into the cultural operating system and constrained -- almost in an unconscious way -- government intrusion in these areas. Those assumptions and constraints have shifted considerably as the "culture" here has changed. That change is very noticeable for those of us who lived as adults in the "before" time compared to now.
It's not all just a revelation of hypocrisy, although hypocrits and fakers are always among us. There has been a very notable cultural change and attitude change.
"There has been a very notable cultural change and attitude change." That part is true.
I wonder if it's not more about the cult of the personality, than the party. The sickening cult of obama quickly and vociferously damned any criticism of obama as racist, stifling free expression and thought. When hillary clinton was kicked to the curb, was it that lifelong democrat Donald Trump was so bad? Or just that he'd violated the cult of clinton?
You are the one being silly as his reference was past tense. If you want to argue that robust criticism of Obama was responded to, like for example about his eligibility for office, without incessant and spurious charges of racism do so but lol.
Your second statement is another mischaracterization of a very simple comment:
"What was so bad about Trump?"
Mikker: "So all criticism was tds?"
Comment was very obviously referring to the unhinged reaction to Trump, an often feted lifelong Democrat, that followed his appearance as a Republican candidate.
Apologies, it was obvious to me. I hope my explanation was helpful.
When did Trump instigate hatred against blacks?
There will be no answer, because he didn't. In fact, those of us that knew him before,knew him to be pretty blind to a persons hue. But tds demands it.
Persuaded yourself that he was never a democrat, or swallowed the narrative about his alleged "hatred against Muslims, black people, and trans people" because his donations to and friendships with prominent Democrats is factual information.
Meanwhile you cannot find anybody levelling these racism/fascism criticisms against Trump, a famous, all-over-television asshole, from before he ran as a Republican. I wonder why that is?
Why did they let a known racist fascist become a feted reality TV star?
If you can find such criticism I'm all ears.
"You're hopeless. I just shared with you reporting from 1990, literally a reprint of the article that was the source of the speculation that Trump was a Nazi"
Thanks for the article, I read and enjoyed that. Speculation (not even any actual evidence) that Trump joked about his heritage is not any indication that Trump is a known Authoritarian Fascist Racist. So if anything it proves my point, it was a throwaway line in a 10,000 word hit piece on a known asshole. Not a known fascist racist authoritarian destroyer of norms and democracy.
Fair enough, I had never heard that but I always had a visceral and negative reaction to him, so I wasn't paying attention.
That's called tds.
Lillia, this is one time I beg to differ with you. It's not that liberals/leftists have chosen party over principle, it's rather the case that a time of crisis has revealed what their principles actually are.
Yes as pointed out elsewhere, they were free speech absolutists because that served their interests when they didn't control the message. This is no longer true.
I think it's a chicken and egg argument, but I see your point. I tend to think of myself as a liberal. I've stayed the same. But I also never identified with a party.
You and me both, sister. Keep on.
"And So it Goes"--an homage to the late, great Linda Ellerbee? One of my all time favorite journalists.
Kurt Vonnegut (Slaughterhouse Five), but I'll have to look up Linda Ellerbee.
Oh yeah, that's right, it was Vonnegut's term originally...but Linda adopted it as her tag line. Maybe check her out--she was smart, clear, and witty--kind of like you.
Sounds like a woman after my own heart. Thank you!
Turns out, she is not dead! But she is retired from journalism.
Let’s speak plainly: tribalism moves much faster than language. “Liberal” (like “conservative”) are old, immovable houses that have each been burnished over years of taking fire; these words are like the American flag itself. The words lose meaning but these colors don’t run.
Agree with this, to which I'd add two things.
1) they live in the past where the Dems were "the good guys." Most of what the left and liberals say today would have been at least somewhat accurate in the 50s and 60s, or maybe the 70s, but not so much since the 80s/90s. They see themselves as anti-establishment and fail to realize liberals and the left have been the establishment - public and private - for 30+ years now. Calling for "resistance" and for "getting in their faces" works when you are an out-of-power minority faction. It doesn't look so good when you hold all the power.
And, 2) that inability to leave the past is due to many former liberals having swallowed - hook, line, and sinker - the propaganda from the far left. They have joined a cult. They may have been formerly skeptical of power and propaganda, but fell for it 100%. They are now propagandized - and in the party that has all the power - which is why we're seeing the dystopian themes we're seeing.
As others pointed out, this came to a head with Donald Trump, who broke them completely (mostly due to hyperbolic Dem-driven propaganda about him). Anything was permitted to "get Trump," including violence, quashing free speech, attacking working class citizens, and violating human rights. Oddly enough, Trump's actual policies are mostly moderate, strongly antiwar, and even more liberal than most Dems' positions. Which is why the (R) party is now the party of the working class. (Even though the GOP does not want that to be the case.)
All that said, I am guessing a lot of these formerly liberal folks are, at some point, going to de-program and return to sanity. It won't be good to be a Dem politician when that happens.
Great comment! I couldn’t have summed it up any better.
Beautifully stated. For the background on the non-existent moral compass of the far Left, read accounts of the Communist party in the US in the last century such as in the book Witness. Until I did so, I assumed that there were principles involved, and that of course truth and logic were universal values of "normal" people even if they were far to the Left. Instead, members of the Party were in reality only loyal to the Party. The Party was the only reality they would acknowledge, and if the Party praised someone one day and then condemned them the next day for the exact same behaviors, you were supposed to accept that. Indeed, you were supposed to believe it with all your heart. Some, like Whittaker Chambers, woke up when he was asked to accept the insanity, the destruction, the axiom that 2+2=5 if the Party says so.
I used to believe that the Democrat party were the good guys, the ones who stood up against irrationality and totalitarianism. It's so so hard to believe how they have flipped nearly 100%; they are rotted all the way through.
Party over principle.
Power over judgement
Emotion over reason
Dogmatism over modesty
Lies over truth.
Intolerance over tolerance
Elites over the public
Collectivism over individuality
Censorship over free expression
Energized by a mainstream media captured by the security state dominating a gullible electorate.
You used the word “signal.” This is important - virtue signaling and the lie by omission are two sides of the same coin. These collectivists actually view that as a positive, ethical thing.
They’re not democrats, they’re marxists.