Just list what’s right, or there goes the weekend.
6 Likes
agreed - everyone talks.
Sure about that?
1 Like
Well, it does depend somewhat on the Democrats running good candidates, and sending a clear message about where they would lead the country. So far, I have to say I’m not real encouraged about the latter.
You’re right it does. And from your statement it seems like liberals are completely not self-aware.
Ok changed my mind. I just saw Haspel in her confirmation hearing refuse to say that torture was immoral. Consider me corrected.
4 Likes
I’ve been thinking about this as well. For a large portion of American history (esp. the 19th century) political campaigns were always dirty and nasty and filled with childish name-calling and such, but there’s something different going on here: a shameless and gleeful wallowing in the mud and manure by the Know-Nothing 25%.
My working theory is that cable news panel shows and then social media created a feedback loop that just encourages more and more of this perverse behaviour. That Putin would deliberately weaponise these media to sow chaos and undermine confidence in liberal-democratic institutions makes perfect sense.
Which is at the core of capital-L Libertarianism and Objectivism – “rugged individualism” expressed through a toddler’s tantrum about having to eat his green vegetables.
9 Likes
Lawfare (which in many ways, represents the deep state) published this.
They also published this rebuttal, whichI think is much stronger.
Up until now, we have disputed the first half of Wittes’s argument—that there is nothing per se disqualifying about Haspel’s deep involvement with the brutal CIA interrogation program. But Wittes makes another case. He argues that while Trump’s support for torture complicates the argument for supporting Haspel, her ability to “insulate” the agency from political pressure will be particularly valuable given the unique dangers posed by the current president.
This reasoning is backwards. To protect the independence of the CIA, its leader must enjoy strong bipartisan support–and that can only come with a nominee who is not tainted by deep involvement with or support for torture. A nominee who is barely confirmed and who owes that confirmation to the president’s political arm-twisting will be in a very weak position to call on support from the Congress should she need to resist White House pressure. No one supports Haspel’s nomination more than Sen. Tom Cotton. But is he likely to support her in a contest with the president or on a dispute over torture?
3 Likes
[citation needed]
5 Likes
Who said anything about liberals? They can be just as cruel as conservatives. The problem, as always, is power and who wields it in our society. Hint, it’s not you and it’s not me, it’s the people who run corporations and to a less extent the government who are in league with them.
The reality is that at least some liberals pay lip service to human rights for all. The current conservatives in power DO NOT. They are a bunch of hardliners who’d rather, for just literally one example, see children taken away form their parents than to actually FIX the problems with the immigration system (which is the inability of people to flow back and forth over the border as easily as capital).
10 Likes
This reminded me of George Carlin and his rant. I agree completely.
10 Likes
George Carlin was an awesome human being and a smart guy.
10 Likes
I don’t like John McCain. His reputation as a so-called “maverick” is widely overstated. Statistically he’s voted without Trump more than most of his peers. His objections to the healthcare bill weren’t even in it’s merits, they were merely procedural. His foreign policy record is disastrous. He’s reliably conservative and no friend to progressives.
I still think those are kinda fucked up comments.
(But I can’t say I won’t be saying these things when Trump and most of his sycophants are on their death bed. I hope I live to see it.)
12 Likes
Indeed.
9 Likes
I’d add his acceptance of the running mate foisted upon him for his 2008 Presidential campaign. In his political career he’s been a textbook example of Churchill’s “boneless wonder.”
That said, kicking a man when he’s down with cancer is an entirely different level of disgusting, one that’s perfectly congruent with this coarse and vulgar and mean-spirited regime.
7 Likes
Precisely this.
8 Likes
What amazes me is that Putin doesnt have a dastardly moustache. However I think he does have a white cat and an secret shark tank, underneath the Kremlin conference room.
You dont think that him being 81 puts a different spin on it? That’s a pretty long life which he has spent representing all I consider hateful.
I’m not sure that I am in favor of hypocrisy even when we are being hypocritical to save the feelings of someone suffering from terminal cancer. Yes all life is precious and yes we should retain compassion for all humans who are suffering, but as far as I can tell this was NOT what John McCain stood for. In my peculiar world view, hypocrisy is as much a sin as coarseness and vulgarity. But both are mere peccadilloes compared to personal corruption, war mongering and arming terrorists.
He remains what he always was, even on his death bed. The fact that he remains well hated among Republicans who have some familiarity with him EVEN ON HIS DEATH BED might be a clue as to what kind of human being he is.
1 Like
For me it’s not the person - I won’t shed any tears when I hear of him shuffling of this mortal coil with the insufferable media blitz as those on the right and left fall over themselves in regaling him as being some sort of honorable war hero, public servant, and of course “maverick”.
For me the outrage is how someone in a public facing role at the White House is exploiting another’s suffering to push forward their agenda in such a blatant and gross way.
8 Likes
8 Likes
