Are Democrats still the Lesser Evil?
Since 1993 the political debate on the left has been about the degree of the Democratic Party's evilness relative to the GOP's evilness, and whether the Dem's evilness is so great that a person can morally vote for them.
The basic assumption was that the Republicans are more evil, and that was usually true (although the amount varied). The GOP endorsed voter suppression, greater corporate power through deregulation, free trade agreements (recall that it was Republicans that pushed through NAFTA), each and every war, and restrictions on civil rights.
The Democrats generally were either split on all of these issues, or weakly opposed them. Thus making them a lesser evil.
Now the point can be made that the Democratic Party: a) falsely presents itself as representing the middle and lower classes; and b) stands in the way of the formation of a real opposition to the elites.
To many that makes the Dems more evil, but that is beyond the scope of this essay.
The Democrats are terrible, but Republicans are even worse.
At least that was clearly true until 2016. Now things aren't so clear.
Democrats have been courting the upper-class for so long that the base of the party is beginning to resemble it.
For starters, Democrats are now far more globalist than Republican voters.
Polls now consistently find that Democratic voters are more supportive than Republicans of free trade. A national Quinnipiac University survey earlier this month found that while nearly three-fifths of Republicans backed Trump's aluminum and steel tariffs, almost three-fourths of Democrats opposed it.
72% of Republicans support renegotiation of NAFTA, compared with 35% of Democrats.
Can you imagine the comfortable liberals of Seattle protesting the WTO today?
This shows how disconnected the Dems have become from the working class, and that's a deal breaker for some on the left.
However, there is an even bigger and more disturbing change in the Democratic base, and it started with the Hillary Clinton campaign.
resident Donald Trump’s December 18 announcement that he intends to withdraw all U.S. troops from Syria produced some isolated support in the anti-war wings of both parties, but largely provoked bipartisan outrage among in Washington’s reflexively pro-war establishment.Both GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the country’s most reliable war supporters, and Hillary Clinton, who repeatedly criticized former President Barack Obama for insufficient hawkishness, condemned Trump’s decision in very similar terms, invoking standard war on terror jargon.
But while official Washington united in opposition, new polling data from Morning Consult/Politico shows that a large plurality of Americans support Trump’s Syria withdrawal announcement: 49 percent support to 33 percent opposition.
Progressives in the Democratic Party either supported the idea of ending our illegal occupation of Syria, but disagreed on how Trump was doing it (which is an excuse for opposing ending the war), or were silent on it.
However, the most disturbing part was the voters.
But what is remarkable about the new polling data on Syria is that the vast bulk of support for keeping troops there comes from Democratic Party voters, while Republicans and independents overwhelming favor their removal. The numbers are stark: Of people who voted for Clinton in 2016, only 26 percent support withdrawing troops from Syria, while 59 percent oppose it. Trump voters overwhelmingly support withdraw by 76 percent to 14 percent.A similar gap is seen among those who voted Democrat in the 2018 midterm elections (28 percent support withdrawal while 54 percent oppose it), as opposed to the widespread support for withdrawal among 2018 GOP voters: 74 percent to 18 percent.
...
Among 2016 Trump voters, there is massive support for withdrawal: 81 percent to 11 percent; Clinton voters, however, oppose the removal of troops from Afghanistan by a margin of 37 percent in favor and 47 percent opposed.
Who in the f*ck are these people?
Back in 2002 a majority of Democratic lawmakers opposed invading Iraq, as did a majority of Democratic voters.
This is despite being smeared as traitors by neocons.
Now the Democrats are aligned with the neocons.
The party’s base spent the Bush-Cheney years denouncing war on terror policies, such as assassinations, drones, and Guantánamo as moral atrocities and war crimes, only to suddenly support those policies once they became hallmarks of the Obama presidency.But what’s happening here is far more insidious. A core ethos of the anti-Trump #Resistance has become militarism, jingoism, and neoconservatism. Trump is frequently attacked by Democrats using longstanding Cold War scripts wielded for decades against them by the far right: Trump is insufficiently belligerent with U.S. enemies; he’s willing to allow the Bad Countries to take over by bringing home U.S. soldiers; his efforts to establish less hostile relations with adversary countries is indicative of weakness or even treason.
At the same time, Democratic policy elites in Washington are once again formally aligning with neoconservatives, even to the point of creating joint foreign policy advocacy groups (a reunion that predated Trump).
Keep in mind that Trump does not equal the GOP. Mainstream Republicans in Washington are generally warhawks. But it's those very same Republicans that Dems are embracing.
After Clinton managed to botch the most winnable election of all time, mainstream liberal America was plunged into a panic that has been fueled at every turn by the plutocratic mass media, which have seized upon unthinking cultish anti-Trumpism to advance the cause of US military interventionism even further with campaigns like the sanctification of John McCain and the rehabilitation of George W Bush. Trump is constantly attacked as being too soft on Moscow despite having already dangerously escalated a new cold war against Russia which some experts are saying is more dangerous than the one the world miraculously survived.
Gabbard also hasn't been sufficiently Russiagate-crazy for Democrats, so that'll be another point of contention. The basic grievance is that she personifies all the scary, comically overblown "red-brown alliance" stuff they've been screaming about for 2+ years.
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) January 12, 2019
On the other end of the spectrum is Tulsi Gabbard, who when she announced her presidential bid said, “There is one main issue that is central to the rest, and that is the issue of war and peace.”
Gabbard is a mixed race congresswoman (of American Samoan descent), Hindu, and US Army reserve officer one would think she would be lionized by the liberals given her "impeccable identity-politics bona fides".
Yet liberals hate her with a passion even greater than the right-wing.
“Assad’s ‘mouthpiece’ in Washington” —RNC welcomes Tulsi Gabbard to the presidential race with a moniker that many liberals probably agree with as well pic.twitter.com/WJJrP1aJv1
— Marc Caputo (@MarcACaputo) January 12, 2019
“Tulsi Gabbard has an even bigger problem than her lack of experience – it’s that she has no base of support,” Republican National Committee (RNC) spokesman Michael Ahrens argued in a statement. "Liberals think she’s too conservative, conservatives think she’s too liberal, and just about everyone thinks her coziness with Bashar al-Assad is disturbing.”
Her "coziness" means she talked to Assad once.
Gabbard's horrible sin is honestly and morally opposing pointless wars. To do this one must actually talk to those that we oppose.
Thus liberals today support pointless wars.
Democrats often use Identity Politics to oppose and undermine people with progressive values, like Bernie Sanders. But Gabbard checks off so many Identity Politics boxes that they openly and shamelessly oppose her because she isn't a warmonger.
Markos and the rest of the unthinking mob on DKos hate her so much that they have a hard time even putting sentences together.
The liberal media are the most shameless warmongers of all.
These are the Tulsi Gabbard fans—Russian propaganda outlet and a KKK grand puppy dragon or whatever pretentious-ass title they give themselves. https://t.co/v3XXH8NAUO
— Markos Moulitsas (@markos) January 12, 2019
On the other side of the spectrum, right-wing pundits are starting to make sense.
Don't get me wrong. There are still issues that Republicans are obviously worse. For instance, there is no anti-Wall Street or anti-Billionaire caucus in the GOP, while there is at least a minority anti-Wall Street and anti-Billionaire caucus in the Democratic Party.
The GOP is unquestionably anti-union (which is a deal breaker for me), while the Dems are just indifferent.
I'm sure there are other examples.
But since the Dems became more pro-FTAs and more pro-war, it's become debatable which party is more evil.
Comments
The goal
is to have two parties that agree on everything bad.
They're equally evil.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
That is what Bill Clinton's mentor said.
Get the two parties to agree on enough policy so the policy always stays the same.
That is, by the way, an excellent way to end representative government in this country.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
A minor correction.
You wrote: "That is, by the way, an excellent way to end representative government in this country."
Changing one word makes it more appropriate: "That was, by the way, an excellent way to end representative government in this country."
You're absolutely right. Thanks, edg.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Flip a coin.
Neither party gives a flying damn about you or me.
Republicans just unleashed mercury and other deadly industrial emissions into the air through deregulation, Democrats do nothing about climate change.
War is good for the financial markets, whether foreign or domestic, as you and I are monitored, facially recognized, our words and actions of dissent held against us in courts of "law".
Our government is evil, top to bottom, side to side.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Yup
In the end, is standing silent as someone is beaten to death evil? I think the 99% would think so.
Watched the Tucker clip . . .
There was a definite republican slant, but pretty great commentary directed at that population. Saying it straight about where Mitt made his money. Needing to take care of average americans.
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
I didn't agree with everything he said
such as his opinions of socialism and marijuana, but most of the rest of it was spot on.
He got more right than Rachel Maddow does in a year.
Political debate for "some" on the left.
I think a good percentage of the left have known there's no difference in parties long before 2016, like about 150 years prior to that. Those under the illusion that this system is democracy still play the lesser evil game.
Probably not 150 years. More like 25 or 30.
But your point is still well taken.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Big Bidness captured the Republican Party @1868,
while the Democratic Party was still their tool. The rest of the century was revolving-door "business/politics as usual" until the R party heads kicked Teddy Roosevelt upstairs to the VP position to keep him occupied and harmless....
Oops....
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
We can agree to disagree
for the purposes of this conversation, because regardless of whether a person thinks the problem was the Powell memo, the Kennedy assassination, the Gilded Age, the Constitution itself, or the invasion of this continent to begin with, it basically comes out the same.
I am very concerned with keeping the history of roughly 1963-2001 visible, in as accurate a form as I can manage, mainly because I see a great deal of effort made to erase just that history.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
With help from the democrats
Look at how many democrats voted for the republican's legislation the last two years. Where were Chuckles and Nancy rallying the democrats to not vote with them. What punishment did Joe Manchin (sp) receive for voting for Kavanaugh? Chuckles recently appointed him to head a powerful committee.
What makes the democrats the bigger evil is their fake opposition to what the republicans do. And NAFTA may have been a republican idea, but it was signed by Bill Clinton. Then there's that TPP that was Obama's creation and then there's all the hideous legislation that he passed including the flawed ACA when they could have passed single payer. And don't say that they didn't have the votes. There were many ways that every democrat could have been pushed to get on board with it.
I would say that proves the point.
About the democrats who don't support Trump pulling the troops out of Syria how many of them feel that way just because it's Trump who is doing it and because they think he's doing it because Vlad told him to so that he can have Syria all for himself? Guess they don't remember that Russia wasn't very involved in Syria until we tried to overthrow Assad. But then they aren't paying any attention to what Trump has actually been doing against Russia that makes him harder on them than Obama was. He has put more sanctions on them than Obama did. Sent weapons to Ukraine that even Obama thought was a bad idea. Tore up the INF treaty. Tore up the Iran treaty. But according to some people Trump is doing Russia's bidding. SMDH! Or maybe they are just thinking that Obama wouldn't have invaded Syria unless he had a darn good reason?
I don't really see the difference. The democrat's and Obama's indifference probably oversaw the death knell of the unions. Union leaders have sold out the workers that they are supposed to be protecting.
But the bottom line is the democrats are not opposed at all to most of the things that the republicans are doing. There should have been an all out blitz over the tax bill and that time that republicans voted for the balanced budget amendment which would have seen every social programs ended as well as huge cuts to SS, Medicare and Medicaid. How many even heard about that? Why haven't we heard anything from Nancy or Schumer about the assault that Trump's appointees are doing to the environment, Davos' attacks on public schools, Carson's attacks on public housing or Trump's work rules for people on Medicaid and SNAP and everything else they are doing? Oh yeah. Nancy has decided that climate change is not that big of an issue as has Schumer after he appointed Manchkin to the energy committee.
I'd say that you can not quantify evil. It just is.
“When out of fear you twist the lesser evil into the lie that it is something good, you eventually rob people of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil.”
~ Hannah Arendt
There is a difference
One actually passed anti-union laws and demonizes them.
That's measurably worse.
Of course the Dems stood by and did nothing. I have a konspiracy theory that the Dems and GOP were playing a good cop/bad cop game on the unions to shake them down. But that's just a theory.
You do realize good cop/bad cop
is to get a person to confess?
Taking that analogy to R and D de facto means they want the exact same (punitive)result.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
.....
And yet it was Clinton's deregulation of the banks that helped setup the economic crisis during the Bush presidency and then Obama refused to hold them accountable and then he continued to bail them out to the tune of trillions while doing nothing as the banks continued to commit fraud fraud and watched as millions of people lost their homes. Bush Sr. put people in prison after the saving and loan debacle. Wealth inequality went way up during Obama's tenure to levels not seen since the Great Depression. Then there's Trump's greatest transfer of wealth which as I stated the democrats were very silent when the republicans were working on it.
I just see corruption and complicity not who isn't as bad as the other.
“When out of fear you twist the lesser evil into the lie that it is something good, you eventually rob people of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil.”
~ Hannah Arendt
Republicans Fellate the Wealthy in Public. Democrats Do It
under the table. That's the distinction between our parties on corporate and the wealthy. Why do we consider one to be better than the other?
Given the overt warmongering and the mandatory veal penning of the pro-peace movement, I'd say Democrats are no longer the lesser evil.
Time for a non-evil candidate, I think.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
The Democrats don't need to pass laws that fuck up the unions
because the unions were already fucked up. It began with Taft-Hartley and went on from there. Reagan, for instance, fucked up the unions politically so badly that they have never recovered. Every politician in DC knows it. With a very few exceptions, like the nurses, some of the teachers, and the CWA, the rest of the unions are effectively part of the Democratic party, no matter what, and don't support their rank and file. This is not hard to see.
In the 21st century, not reinvigorating the unions is the same as opposing them. If somebody got hit in the head and is on the ground bleeding out, and people walk by, you can't say that those people are "more supportive" of the person on the ground than the person who hit them upside the head and stabbed them.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
You and edg have it right. Scandals vs. policies
Matt Stoller has made that argument that Obama's policies constitute major scandals. Stoller articulates this as:
And later in the thread.
I think the policy of not prosecuting banksters was a scandal--HSBC was caught money laundering Mexican drug cartel monies, and just paid a fine.
Here is an article on the subject.
Democrats can't win until they recognize how bad Obama's financial policies were
Excellent Twitter thread
Stoeller spoke plainly about how bad Obama's economic policies were and the first comment followed by many more were nu uh! "You wrong and I'm going to plug my ears until you go away."
Barney Frank: Obama Rejected Bush Administration Concession to Write Down Mortgages
There is much more ..
“When out of fear you twist the lesser evil into the lie that it is something good, you eventually rob people of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil.”
~ Hannah Arendt
It is worth noting > > >
that the mortages that went under were shredded with pieces gathered in collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Many people in the know purchased credit default swaps (CDSs) that paid if CDOs defaulted. It was a thing of beauty. You didn't even need to own a CDO to purchase CDSs. It's like taking out insurance on somebody else's life. BUT, for credit default swaps to pay out there has to be a default. If Obama had used the tremendous leverage he had over banks to force them to lower outstanding mortgages many people could have avoided default. Thus no payout to the owners of credit default swaps.
Obama couldn't have that. Think how much less the financial sector would be plunking into his platinum cup as he makes the rounds.
Obama's union busting.
Obama's destruction of unions was more insidious. He engineered the two-tier wage system for Big 3 auto makers that eviscerated wages for newer workers.
Ah, yes, the vaunted bailout of the Big 3.
So ethical and supportive of the workers.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
You are on fire, chica
n/t
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
If Gabbard isn't a warmonger,
explain her support for the fake war OF terror. Also her membership with the Council on Foreign Relations, and her position on Russia regarding Ukraine. Gabbard is first and foremost a democratic party political creature who will do and say what she thinks it takes to further her career, just like Obama.
At the very least, you can count on the fact that
before Gabbard won her primary against Beto O Rourke or whoever, she would face massive election fraud that would prevent her going further, followed up by a "conversation" informing her about how she would give her support to her party leadership and their annointed candidate, or else.
That's what just happened to Bernie. Do we have any reason to believe it wouldn't happen again?
The Democratic leadership and their backers have figured out how to keep elections from taking away their power.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
What does that have to do with her support for the war OF
terror? And are you calling Gabbard the "power"? Ya, we know how it works, but we don't know exactly why Gabbard made this announcement. She's got some money behind her no doubt and from what I've learned about her, she's kind of a political chameleon who changes stripes according to what's best for her political career. She's a career politician and we should end that practice ASAP. Career politicians do what's best for their career first and foremost.
I think once her affiliation with the right wing Modi comes out, she'll be out before we know it, which is why she's trying to mitigate that with this latest stunt over the democrats questioning of the Knights of Columbus dude.
What I'm saying, Al,
is that even if people think Gabbard is a wonderful person with great policy, it will not bring about progressive change.
That is not to say that anything you just said about her is wrong. It's to say that, even if people don't agree with you, or are willing to do a lesser-of-two-evils thing again, she is a pointless place to put energy, as are, well, pretty much everybody involved with either of the two major parties.
The problem with today's politics is that an honest and ethical appraisal of them requires one to approach elections with extreme skepticism. Most Americans apparently can't bear that. Although, I dunno, maybe amongst the many millions of people who don't vote at all there might be a significant number who agree with my take on things (and yours). But since those people have no vehicle for public expression of their views, it's hard to tell.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
What is this all about?
Mueller Draft Report Says Trump 'Helped Putin Destabilize the United States', Watergate Journalist Says
Carl Bernstein ???
https://www.euronews.com/live
If this is what Mueller is going to say
then we will be witnessing a coup because Trump did not do anything like that. Reagan wasn't impeached for working with Iran to not release the hostages until after the election. Or for his actions with the Iran Contras.
More false reporting. The NY Slimes wrote about how the FBI investigated Trump after he fired Comey and found out that he did nothing wrong. The WaPo wrote about "how Trump didn't disclose what he and Vlad spoke about during their meetings. Since when do presidents have to publicly disclose their meetings with foreign governments? Did Trump actually grab the translation of his and Vlad's conversation? Who told the Post that? An unnamed source? Why has almost every report been from an unnamed source or someone 'close to the investigation'?
I despise the things that Trump is doing to the country, but there are real issues that he might be impeached for. He shouldn't be on false allegations. This is just to get people on board with the upcoming actions against Russia. And unfortunately it looks like it worked.
I'd sure like to know how Russia has destabilized the country and did something that our government hasn't done?
Russia didn't give the elites the biggest tax cut ever. Russia didn't ...
“When out of fear you twist the lesser evil into the lie that it is something good, you eventually rob people of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil.”
~ Hannah Arendt
I understand, just didn't expect
Carl Bernstein would be going the road down to hell based on 'having been told' sources.
It is basically not worth anymore to listen and read anything, if everything is based on 'unkown sources' that can't be disclosed.
Sigh.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Bernstein as described in 1989.
well, thx, unfortunately the source link you gave
is not available to where I am. That shows up, when I click on the source link.
It all smells like smear anyway. Why bother?
https://www.euronews.com/live
@snoopydawg I'd sure like to know
I'd sure like to know how Russia has destabilized the country and did something that our government hasn't done?
I'd say the same thing, except instead of "our government," put in "our elites, public and private sector, in tandem."
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Thanks for that tweet.
I shared it on Tumblr.
This shit is bananas.
Personally, I think Reagan's Iran deal
came a hell of a lot closer to treason than anything Trump has done.
Making deals to keep Americans hostage longer for your own political gain?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
"Gabbard is first and
"Gabbard is first and foremost a democratic party political creature who will do and say what she thinks it takes to further her career, just like Obama."
I agree that Gabbard should be watched closely, as she is indeed a Democratic party politician. That said, she appears to see the way forward rather differently from most of her colleagues, and has not been afraid to criticize our involvement in endless war in the middle east. I suspect she calculates that a great many Americans are opposed to the warmongering of the two parties and will respond to a politician who talks honestly about that. The fact of her military service also gives her a certain amount of protection against attacks from the right on issues of war and peace.
We should also keep in mind that electoral politics in this country have been so corrupted that it is questionable that it should be at the center of our political activity. Politics should be about changing society for the better, not about electing this or that person to office on the vague promise that they might do something positive.
You can also add the pro-fracking, pro-drilling
Democrats to the pile of "are they really worse anymore?"
In 2007, there was a wing of the Democratic party, in DC, that strongly wanted to do something about climate change. Interestingly, the first 2-3 years of Obama rule ended that, apparently forever. Now they just talk about how bad it is that Republicans don't believe in climate change. Apparently it's better to believe in it and still do the wrong thing.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Better is the new Wurst
Sorry about that.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
corporate ownership of both parties...
In a country where money is speech and corporations are people, human beings will not be represented at all by either party. Our reps are pre-selected by the parties and they are all owned by various entities. Ralph suggest the NRA and AIPAC are the most effective, but banks, big pharma, and fossil fuel conglomerates buy a share of most politicians too.
I wish they all had to wear corporate labels like race car drivers...
Where are the Raytheon and Boeing labels? Must be covering his backside.
There was an effort in CA to make them do so
https://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/just-in/2016-02-21/not-s...
So who is worse dims or rethugs is like asking which is worse murder or rape?
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Corporations are people
and employees aren't. Whatta country!
This shit is bananas.
Taking a Literary View... (Memories of TOP Inspired.)
Who's more Evil? Sauron Or Saruman?
TOP of course declared that middle earth is racist, so therefore, Saruman is the good guy. After all, he only wanted to bring TECHNOLOGY to everybody. Yet, here the elves and men go, claiming some bullshit about technology being the cause of environmental problems and the degradation of the orcs. Clearly working with Saruman is the best plan. He's certain that the steps he used to build his army can be properly channeled to solve ALL of the issues once Sauron is defeated.
Remember, Sauron was an ELF, so therefore anything you hear from any elf is bad and evil. Remember, Wormtongue knows how to properly appeal to the Orc Voters, that's why we have him on board. Don't let the Perfect be the enemy of the good here. We can't sell Pocket Palantir's to the men of the east if you keep fighting them. I mean, are you really going to listen to an old white male like Gandalf that they mean to destroy you?
/snark
I think that pretty much covers the TOP position. I think the original parody had people EMPHATICALLY claiming that Hillary was the hero of the story until they couldn't anymore, and then went to the "Well the story is racist" version of events to disparage the comparison.
LOTR is acceptable to TPTB as long as people stay stuck on the epic CGI battle scenes. The minute they think about what the story MEANS... Similar things apply to parody and satire, I find. The minute they start in with the "That's Offensive" it's only a short step to Charlie Hebdo events.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RE16UK2o1Yk]
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
That is so far off the wall I can't even!
Just let me point out that Sauron was never an Elf - he just impersonated one at one point. I guess the moral there was "beware of evil Maiar in Elf clothing".
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
One Google for "LOTR is Racist"
will make you weep bitter tears for the future.
Apparently the current internet group think is that Orcs are an allegory for non-white people, therefore the entire story is racist. And I have heard this in person in Portland, so... it's not just online crazies, unfortunately.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFMQJfK28ZQ]
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
That's actually quite an old meme
and I'll just bet it was started by critics who hate fantasy in ANY form, so they were going to find something to bash the story with no matter what.
IMHO Orcs are a stand-in for the human Id unchained - and everybody has an Id, whether they are white, black, brown, yellow, red, green, or purple with pink polkadots. Even the nonhuman Krell turned out to have Ids, to their all-too-brief regret (see Forbidden Planet).
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
I loathe the current zeitgeist
about EVERYBODY being a good guy, and you must always try to understand even the most loathsome acts in the name of good.
Although I admit I might be sounding a bit like this at this point.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFEK0Sbq4o8]
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Hillary is still the hero at TOP.
I haven't unsubscribed to one of their email lists. (I find it amusing to read their desperate pleas for contributions.) Today I clicked on a diary where Hillary was the all knowing hero thwarted by Putin, manipulating the puppet Trump and aided by the useful idiot, Bernie. It was just like old times.
So, the republicans are evil.
and the democrats want bipartisanship and compromise. Sorry, what was the question again?
Hmm...
I've found that reading the essay explains the question the essayist raises.
Sorry
should have used the /snark thing again. I read the essay, it's good, but it feels like in some form or another I've been reading it for years. Not just from gjohnsit, from so many writers. The democrats will always disappoint, over and over and over. I get tired of unions being the answer, when a good percentage, when they get what they want are as likely to vote republican, against climate science, living wage,single payer. When does it turn into a two way street? I guess I'm just tired and I'm cranky.
In the mid 90s
some people were trying to organize taxi drivers in SF. I was talking to one and brought up the NLRB. He said that "the NLRB since Clinton is much more hostile to us than Reagan's ever was."
See my sig line.
On to Biden since 1973
Who the fuck are these people?
I suspect they are the same afflicted people we find on DKos who defended John McCain and squealed with delight over GWB handing Michelle Obama a candy.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Lesser evil is still evil.
One party says they don’t give a damn about you and votes accordingly. The other party “feels your pain” while spinelessly enabling the first guys. End result is the same, so does it matter who is worse?
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
It still matters to most voters
At least that was my impression from TOP.
A little less evil.......
Is that like being a little less pregnant?
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
you're all correct and there are no issues
all "stances" on "issues" are overlays on the only thing that matters: grabbing power and money.
Using the Dems as an example, this mind-blowing flip-flop on the CIA/FBI shows they'll use any anti-"the other side", believing in nothing except a back-stabbing, power-grabbing, Machiavellian....what's the German word for "power lust"? Whatever it is, that's what they've got. And that's all they care about so when any issue comes up the stance they take is phony. I call it an overlay because it's like paper dolls. They can take their "side" on and off at whim. That's because they have no side.
and the Republicans are the same. They were the civil rights party for 100 years. Maybe someday they'll be that again....if it leads to them getting richer.
power lust = Machtgier in German /nt
https://www.euronews.com/live
Ralph Nader on difference: at what speed you hit the wall
I remember watching a video clip of Nader saying the difference between the parties is if you want to hit a wall at 60mph (democrats) or 120mph (gopers). By implication there is a 2x difference. Running with that analogy, the democrats are not 50% less evil than republicans. In many areas, one cannot make a comparison except to say that when Obama was in office, his economic/financial policies were evil. His foreclosure policies forced millions into potential or real homelessness.
It is like picking your poison. But pick your poison you must. And attempting to qualify the differences does no good.
Yes, Obama separated families at the border, too
The difference I suppose in the end is that Obama got little to no press on the shit he did.
Nader's example is telling
Hitting a wall at 60mph is also going to be fatal. Dead is dead - if the only difference is the condition of your corpse that's no difference.
On to Biden since 1973
Repubs are worse
They have been actively trying to bankrupt our government since 2000 by cutting taxes and increasing spending. It's not even close who's worse. Their endgame is to extinguish Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. "We can't afford it," they say.
Oh, and don't forget the wing of the R's trying to bring about armageddon through war in the Middle East for the Second Coming of Jesus. Weirdos.
You apparently
haven't been listening to the dems who have been trying to gut benes.
And then there are the dems who are trying to overthrow Trump and do away with due process. And the dems who have changed every position they have held once Trump supported some of these positions.
Yep, reliable, wholesome people, those dems.
dfarrah
You're right, but recent history is still history
even when it's continuing. The Republicans are still evil - just as evil as they've always been, but in 2019 the Democrats - the corporate Dems, the identity politics Hillbots - are the greater evil
On to Biden since 1973
Wow. After being
dismissed for so long for citing Tucker (and Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity) here, I'm amazed to see a whole segment of Tucker in a diary.
Have you tried watching Laura Ingraham? I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by some of the overlap between us and 'them.'
All of them are knee-jerk pro-capitalist, anti-socialist people (and they all think Pelosi is a lefty
), but they do hold some similar positions as progressives do(or whatever you want to call them).
dfarrah