The Left will come around.

a reply to: DanteGaland

Yeaah...well when we were flew into the States my wife booked us into a hotel in Inglewood in LA. Now Inglewood in West Australia is a nice upper middle class affluent area...LOL...

We had a Zombie walk into our restaurant...hassling people...from then on we were watching the drug deals go down from our hotel room whilst eating take-out!

All my wifes workmates laughed so much about her booking into an Inglewood hotel.

One of the greatest corporate right wing propaganda moves pulled in this country was painting moderate left/liberal policies adopted in virtually every other developed country (universal health care, cheap higher education, fair ratio of CEO to worker pay, living wage) as "far left commie" stuff. They also managed to convince conservatives that Democrats are "leftists." What we actually have is a full right wing party, Republicans, and a center or center right wing party, Democrats. In Europe the Dems would be considered as such at best, just as real leftists view them as.

originally posted by: DanteGaland
Was EIGHT years of Obama that god awful?

Clinton would have been more of the same old, same old.

But no, some people couldn't STAND to have first a black main in the WH, and then a ...*GASP* woman!

To much, To fast. To much for some to accept.

And this is exactly why there will not be any healing of this divide.

They don't even understand why trump was selected by the american people. I really don't think they have the ability to rationalize why he was elected.

They think it is all about racism and sexism.

They think that if we just force everyone to think 'good' thoughts (PC/SJW thoughts) then mankind will start heading in the right direction.

They have no clue and I seriously doubt they even WANT a clue at this point. They love their hate too much to be without it at this point.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

It's merely the covert coup de tat operations ying / to the Neo-Conservatives overt military intervention operations yang (and an economic imperialism philosophy that unites the two).

BINGO!

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

Plenty of the left criticize this stuff, and most Bernie supporters and aCTUAL leftists (not democrats) have been saying this the whole time.

I've been trying, for many years, to convey there being a difference between "Democrat's" (representatives of our elites masters and their agenda(s)) and everyday "liberals" (whom unfortunately too often fall for the agenda(s)), and the same with Republican's/conservatives.

I started writing new thing on it the other day actually, maybe I'll finish it tonight for tomorrow.

The point is the Party's they dont truly represent US, they dont work for US, their BS divides US, they and the cliques they do work for / are stooged with dont give a flying F about any of US, and so on.

Still confused over the concept these "progressives" and how to tell them apart from "liberals", however... and I'm not sure that anybody else is sure either??

Well, first I agree that the leadership is corrupt on both sides.

Progressive means you are in between Democrats (Centrist establishment, pro wall street, pro war) and actual full far left commies/socialists. It generally means you are more left than mainstream Democrats.

It also usually means you are anti-war, for campaign finance reform, for environmental causes, for an economic regime that reduces income inequality, etc. A good example of the more left version of that would be Green Party.

Bernie is a good example of a progressive, his values.

Okay.

So then we have Identity Politick mania sorts, which sorting out this 'new thing' of the decade has stirred in me this confusion over liberal/progressive.

It's caused me to coin this "Nu-Liberal" term, as Neo-Liberalism isnt a new thing. It's merely the covert coup de tat operations ying / to the Neo-Conservatives overt military intervention operations yang (and an economic imperialism philosophy that unites the two).

I havent had anyone argue me against the term; I try to make it obvious what I mean when I use it.

Right, ironically neo-con is right wing on war, and neo-liberal is right wing on economics. The reason for this is that economic "liberalism" (not to be confused with progressive politics) meant deregulation, i.e. 'liberal' or free economics. It's a different definition or use of the word. BUT, it's the right wing that now days and in recent decades supports economic liberalism. For example, leftist economics is not economic liberalism, but the opposite.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: TinfoilTP

ROLFMFAO!

Is that thing real?

It looks real

Some people would actually use it, and then there's multiple potential cynical layers to it.

Sadly it's too real for even the mud pit.....oh well.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: DanteGaland
Was EIGHT years of Obama that god awful?

Clinton would have been more of the same old, same old.

But no, some people couldn't STAND to have first a black main in the WH, and then a ...*GASP* woman!

To much, To fast. To much for some to accept.

Ah yes,

People saying crap like this drove masses to vote against you. Keep telling everyone how racist, sexist, and unwelcome they are in your party if they disagree with the crazy identity politics and hatred then wonder why you loose elections???

Why does this drive people to vote for someone that is possibly the dumbest person to ever hold office?

Because the masses realize that people like you are a far greater threat to freedom than trump will ever be.

This is the war of ideologies. Our government is just a reflection of us. The PC/SJW movement has given us the current installment of overlords that are ruling over us.

When we can get rid of this BS movement, our government will follow in form.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

Plenty of the left criticize this stuff, and most Bernie supporters and aCTUAL leftists (not democrats) have been saying this the whole time.

I've been trying, for many years, to convey there being a difference between "Democrat's" (representatives of our elites masters and their agenda(s)) and everyday "liberals" (whom unfortunately too often fall for the agenda(s)), and the same with Republican's/conservatives.

I started writing new thing on it the other day actually, maybe I'll finish it tonight for tomorrow.

The point is the Party's they dont truly represent US, they dont work for US, their BS divides US, they and the cliques they do work for / are stooged with dont give a flying F about any of US, and so on.

Still confused over the concept these "progressives" and how to tell them apart from "liberals", however... and I'm not sure that anybody else is sure either??

Well, first I agree that the leadership is corrupt on both sides.

Progressive means you are in between Democrats (Centrist establishment, pro wall street, pro war) and actual full far left commies/socialists. It generally means you are more left than mainstream Democrats.

It also usually means you are anti-war, for campaign finance reform, for environmental causes, for an economic regime that reduces income inequality, etc. A good example of the more left version of that would be Green Party.

Bernie is a good example of a progressive, his values.

Okay.

So then we have Identity Politick mania sorts, which sorting out this 'new thing' of the decade has stirred in me this confusion over liberal/progressive.

It's caused me to coin this "Nu-Liberal" term, as Neo-Liberalism isnt a new thing. It's merely the covert coup de tat operations ying / to the Neo-Conservatives overt military intervention operations yang (and an economic imperialism philosophy that unites the two).

I havent had anyone argue me against the term; I try to make it obvious what I mean when I use it.

Right, ironically neo-con is right wing on war, and neo-liberal is right wing on economics. The reason for this is that economic "liberalism" (not to be confused with progressive politics) meant deregulation, i.e. 'liberal' or free economics. It's a different definition or use of the word. BUT, it's the right wing that now days and in recent decades supports economic liberalism. For example, leftist economics is not economic liberalism, but the opposite.

That's not what I meant about economic. I speak to the Milton Friedman idea of international economic imperialism, where under the guise of "free markets" the globalists roll into third world nations with IMF / World Bank loans and plunder the nation. They called it Neo-Liberalism. Naomi Klein and John Perkins talk a LOT about what I mean. Ron Paul & Noam Chomsky too!

This has gone on for 50+ years regardless of "Democrat" or Republican" POTUS etc.

So in recent times seeing how Obama scratched off overt Neocon military imperialism, yet still caused the same amount of destruction with covert and psychological + arming terrorists (Al Qaeda no less) operations, which is what we've seen with Bill Clinton, and every other POTUS, since the Neocon's have claimed the fame of overt in your face militarism I was compelled to amend the Neo-Liberal concept to cover the Dem's appeal to covert / PSYOP 'only' methods in terms of actual conflict methodology... while Neocon's and Neolib's (and Democrat's & Republican's) are still both into as imperialist "Neoliberal economics" already (this being the case even before there were "proper Neocon's").

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: DanteGaland
Was EIGHT years of Obama that god awful?

Clinton would have been more of the same old, same old.

But no, some people couldn't STAND to have first a black main in the WH, and then a ...*GASP* woman!

To much, To fast. To much for some to accept.

Ah yes,

People saying crap like this drove masses to vote against you. Keep telling everyone how racist, sexist, and unwelcome they are in your party if they disagree with the crazy identity politics and hatred then wonder why you loose elections???

Why does this drive people to vote for someone that is possibly the dumbest person to ever hold office?

Oh, let me see.... vote for the most corrupt person ever to run for president in my lifetime who will continue the PC assault daily on how evil I am if I don't fall in line with whatever progressive PC insanity is the topic of the day, raise my taxes because we don't pay enough already, and tell me what a POS I am if I resist having my taxes raised since I am guilty of some PC heresy crime of non-100% agreement on whatever insane cause is being pushed this week.

Or Vote for the "dumb guy" .......

hmmmm. Tough choices.

Let's roll the dice!

I didn't vote For Trump... I voted against Hillary and the Progressive Authoritarian movement and will continue to do so until the DNC drops this "everyone is a racist, bigot, hater if you don't mindlessly agree with us 100% on our issues / no common sense or debate allowed" BS.

And I am far from the only one.

My Grandfather was a life-long Democrat, My Father was a life-long Democrat and Teamster for decades, and I was a Democrat until Bill Clinton's 2nd term.

When the DNC stopped representing the middle class and turned to identity politics and now SJW / PC insanity, things changed.

How does the DNC represent the middle class anymore other than the Federal Employees Union? Seriously...

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Wage caps and government-run healthcare are socialist policies.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

Plenty of the left criticize this stuff, and most Bernie supporters and aCTUAL leftists (not democrats) have been saying this the whole time.

I've been trying, for many years, to convey there being a difference between "Democrat's" (representatives of our elites masters and their agenda(s)) and everyday "liberals" (whom unfortunately too often fall for the agenda(s)), and the same with Republican's/conservatives.

I started writing new thing on it the other day actually, maybe I'll finish it tonight for tomorrow.

The point is the Party's they dont truly represent US, they dont work for US, their BS divides US, they and the cliques they do work for / are stooged with dont give a flying F about any of US, and so on.

Still confused over the concept these "progressives" and how to tell them apart from "liberals", however... and I'm not sure that anybody else is sure either??

Well, first I agree that the leadership is corrupt on both sides.

Progressive means you are in between Democrats (Centrist establishment, pro wall street, pro war) and actual full far left commies/socialists. It generally means you are more left than mainstream Democrats.

It also usually means you are anti-war, for campaign finance reform, for environmental causes, for an economic regime that reduces income inequality, etc. A good example of the more left version of that would be Green Party.

Bernie is a good example of a progressive, his values.

Okay.

So then we have Identity Politick mania sorts, which sorting out this 'new thing' of the decade has stirred in me this confusion over liberal/progressive.

It's caused me to coin this "Nu-Liberal" term, as Neo-Liberalism isnt a new thing. It's merely the covert coup de tat operations ying / to the Neo-Conservatives overt military intervention operations yang (and an economic imperialism philosophy that unites the two).

I havent had anyone argue me against the term; I try to make it obvious what I mean when I use it.

Right, ironically neo-con is right wing on war, and neo-liberal is right wing on economics. The reason for this is that economic "liberalism" (not to be confused with progressive politics) meant deregulation, i.e. 'liberal' or free economics. It's a different definition or use of the word. BUT, it's the right wing that now days and in recent decades supports economic liberalism. For example, leftist economics is not economic liberalism, but the opposite.

That's not what I meant about economic. I speak to the Milton Friedman idea of international economic imperialism, where under the guise of "free markets" the globalists roll in with IMF / World Bank loans and plunder the nation. They call it Neo-Liberalism. Naomi Klein and John Perkins talk a LOT about what I mean.

This has gone on for 50+ years regardless of "Democrat" or Republican" POTUS etc.

So in recent times seeing how Obama scratched off overt Neocon military imperialism, yet still caused the same amount of destruction with covert and psychological + arming terrorists (Al Qaeda no less) operations, which is what we've seen with Bill Clinton, and every other POTUS, since the Neocon's have claimed the fame of overt in your face militarism I was compelled to amend the Neo-Liberal concept to cover the Dem's appeal to covert / PSYOP 'only' methods in terms of actual conflict methodology... while Neocon's and Neolib's (and Democrat's & Republican's) are still both into as imperialist "Neoliberal economics" already (this being the case even before there were "proper Neocon's").

Well, yes. but economic liberalism including neo-liberalism (which is what the term refers to) means both and. It still primarily means unregulated markets.

Don't get me wrong, I am in agreement with you that BOTH parties and US policy since the 50's have been all about a united domestic oligarchic agenda, and foreign neo-imperialism. This is what partisan conservatives and liberals fail to grasp. It's only more important for us liberals, as the Democrats have been completely complicit in all this.

I wonder if Trump-haters would opt-out of the Tax Cuts, if given the chance?

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

There ya go!

Yeah the piece I mentioned I started (on the first page), where the Two Party's have the two philosophies they claim to represent all twisted up and at each others throats, I mostly frame this piece around the economic nuttery the Two Party's have perpetrated together.

Even just with "regulations", the Dem's tell the liberals theyre going to regulate the corrupt corporations, which IS NEEDED, but the only impression I ever get from their work it they facilitate the megaconglomerates merging and keeping little guys too pinned down and out of ever having a shot to go anywhere, sort of BS, and naturally after decades of this I can see the regular conservatives feeling that pressure and grow to hate "regulations". So here comes the "Republican's" (RINO's) to say they're against "regulations" yet all I see from their work is the same thing just described.

SO now after decades of this kind of BS, here now liberals/progressives scream blaming it all on "capitalism", so conservatives say FU we're against these "regulations" and socialism communism whatever (as there's only one REPLACEMENT for "Capitalism").... meanwhile what both Party's have been slinging as "Capitalism" all along is CRONY CORPORATISM.

And just so long as we (liberals/everyone in between/conservatives) keep fighting along these ways the Two party's have framed it, we can never unite and things will never change for the better..............

originally posted by: ClovenSky

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: DanteGaland
Was EIGHT years of Obama that god awful?

Clinton would have been more of the same old, same old.

But no, some people couldn't STAND to have first a black main in the WH, and then a ...*GASP* woman!

To much, To fast. To much for some to accept.

Ah yes,

People saying crap like this drove masses to vote against you. Keep telling everyone how racist, sexist, and unwelcome they are in your party if they disagree with the crazy identity politics and hatred then wonder why you loose elections???

Why does this drive people to vote for someone that is possibly the dumbest person to ever hold office?

Because the masses realize that people like you are a far greater threat to freedom than trump will ever be.

This is the war of ideologies. Our government is just a reflection of us. The PC/SJW movement has given us the current installment of overlords that are ruling over us.

When we can get rid of this BS movement, our government will follow in form.

People like me? You do know the right has the biggest PC/SJW movement there is right?

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: DanteGaland
Was EIGHT years of Obama that god awful?

Clinton would have been more of the same old, same old.

But no, some people couldn't STAND to have first a black main in the WH, and then a ...*GASP* woman!

To much, To fast. To much for some to accept.

Ah yes,

People saying crap like this drove masses to vote against you. Keep telling everyone how racist, sexist, and unwelcome they are in your party if they disagree with the crazy identity politics and hatred then wonder why you loose elections???

Why does this drive people to vote for someone that is possibly the dumbest person to ever hold office?

Oh, let me see.... vote for the most corrupt person ever to run for president in my lifetime who will continue the PC assault daily on how evil I am if I don't fall in line with whatever progressive PC insanity is the topic of the day, raise my taxes because we don't pay enough already, and tell me what a POS I am if I resist having my taxes raised since I am guilty of some PC heresy crime of non-100% agreement on whatever insane cause is being pushed this week.

Or Vote for the "dumb guy" .......

hmmmm. Tough choices.

Let's roll the dice!

I didn't vote For Trump... I voted against Hillary and the Progressive Authoritarian movement and will continue to do so until the DNC drops this "everyone is a racist, bigot, hater if you don't mindlessly agree with us 100% on our issues / no common sense or debate allowed" BS.

And I am far from the only one.

So you voted for Trump because of PC/SJW culture which is a far bigger issues on the right then the left?

a reply to: Pyle

I voted for Trump because my taxes will be lower.

Hillary's plan would have raised my taxes.

originally posted by: Dudemo5
I understand and appreciate the reasons you cite for why someone would have voted for Trump.

But there are people on here who do more than just defend "Trump from lies."

Hell, if you guys all know he's a jack-ass, it might help if you'd just say, "Yes, he's a jack-ass and a terrible choice for a President, but Jesus H. Christ our only other choice was Hillary. "

Or something....

And then STOP defending him when he does something stupid, or disorganized, or sloppy, or shows his complete lack of ability to govern, or his complete failure to understand policy at a granular level or to SELL anything to anyone OTHER than the 38% in his core voting block.

I mean, just admit the guy sucks. And let's go from there.

The problem with admitting "the guy sucks" is that it will be seen by the political class and the media as a gesture by the voters that they are admitting they were wrong to oppose the political class and the media.

Voting for Trump was a snub to the political class and the media and until they freely acknowledge their defeat the voters will continue to defend their action so that it continues to have meaning. That just so happens to mean they need to defend Trump and all of his jackassery, that is still a better choice than giving onto the tantrums being thrown by the political class and the media.

a reply to: Pyle

The Cult of SJW is the greatest internal threat the USA has ever faced bar none. It literally brought me out of a 5 year 'retirement' from all this politics drama BS, once I finally sat up long enough to even notice their BS (last summer).

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Pyle

The Cult of SJW is the greatest internal threat the USA has ever faced bar none. It literally brought me out of a 5 year 'retirement' from all this politics drama BS, once I finally sat up long enough to even notice their BS (last summer).

And you are in the middle of it pushing your version of it but are too blind to see it.

a reply to: Pyle

Here is My Version of "it":
Arise the ALT/ALT!

Which is absolutely the last thing either SJW's or 'proper" Alt-Right are ever trying to hear.