11–20 of 22 posts
People in the US should be taking notes. It would perhaps be better if a domestic resistance could disrupt the Trump agenda before it gets to the point that it requires bravery in the face of death, rather than merely foresight and the courage to act on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be even better if resistance went beyond the Donald -- which is just a fashionable target du jour everybody on the progressive side can feel good about resisting. Similar BS has been going on forever, now it's just unfashionable, tacky, and doesn't follow the same protocols that others followed nicely. In short, the major difference, figuratively speaking, is that this time the devil wears crocs and has a ba…
I think this is a bit overly cynical. The devil wasn't openly agitating for nuclear war and trying to inflame Middle East tensions until he was Donald Trump. Perhaps all politicians are bad, but they are not all equally bad.
Now all that's gone out the window. Policies are based on complete nonsense. Allies are shown the door. Theories with zero credibility are being treated as hard fact.
The toughest part about resisting all of this is that it won't stop. This will be a tidal wave of unimaginable bullshit that must be held back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It would perhaps be better if a domestic resistance could disrupt the Trump agenda before it gets to the point that it requires bravery in the face of death Will y'all stop ham-fistedly forcing your insane political beliefs into every thread? Thanks.
Nope. They should get political as heck in this thread. It's a story about a person who was in an activist group for chrissakes.
People in the US should be taking notes. It would perhaps be better if a domestic resistance could disrupt the Trump agenda before it gets to the point that it requires bravery in the face of death, rather than merely foresight and the courage to act on it.
Why does Trump's agenda need resistance? Why do you think you might need to die for it? Be specific, what threat does he pose that is so great that you are willing to die to stop it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be even better if resistance went beyond the Donald -- which is just a fashionable target du jour everybody on the progressive side can feel good about resisting. Similar BS has been going on forever, now it's just unfashionable, tacky, and doesn't follow the same protocols that others followed nicely. In short, the major difference, figuratively speaking, is that this time the devil wears crocs and has a ba…
I think this is a bit overly cynical. The devil wasn't openly agitating for nuclear war and trying to inflame Middle East tensions until he was Donald Trump. Perhaps all politicians are bad, but they are not all equally bad.
Don't know about "openly agitating for nuclear war", but the last 10-15 years have seen 3 wars / invasions and tons of bombing around the world. And Hillary was consistently and openly provoking certain nuclear powers and eager to get some new war going.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a bit overly cynical. The devil wasn't openly agitating for nuclear war and trying to inflame Middle East tensions until he was Donald Trump. Perhaps all politicians are bad, but they are not all equally bad.
All American presidents up to this point have, to varying degrees, had a sense of self-preservation, that while their vision of America didn't necessarily align with that of other people it was what was best for the country. Maybe what was best was a war in Iraq, or a tax break for the rich, but it was at least based on some principle. Now all that's gone out the window. Policies are based on complete nonsense. Allie…
Was it really though? Let's just put the names Nixon and G.W Bush Jr. here. There's no reason to believe that politicians stopped being crooks since the time of H.L. Mencken. The main "principle" was catering to sponsors, rich buddies, special interests and the military-industrial complex handling out cushy jobs post-presidency.
>Theories with zero credibility are being treated as hard fact.
So like WMDs? Which were not just some "fake news" that played for 10 minutes in the media like we have now, but an orchestrated political attempt, that featured prominently in the NYT and other media, and was the excuse for a whole war.
That was not a Pizza-gate "National Enquirer" level BS or "attack on Bowling Green" stunt. Those fake news cost thousands of human lives on both sides, a destroyed country that got from relative stability to civil war / fundamentalist hellhole, and a trillion or so dollars. And also resulted in hefty profits (that trillion had to end in some pockets, even if they were arms manufacturers and contractors).
Or like the whole absurd "Russia hacked the elections" meme, when not only there's been no proof released, but even if those pesky Russians did what they are supposed to have done (released some internal docs and such) at best it's a minor incident with negligible impact on the election results (not to mention: nobody says those docs were false: just that the public shouldn't have known the truth. Not to mention: that's like 1/1000th of what the CIA used to do all around the world to get favorable election results).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does Trump's agenda need resistance? Why do you think you might need to die for it? Be specific, what threat does he pose that is so great that you are willing to die to stop it?
If a handful of people had died and were able to stop Bush's invasion of Iraq by doing so, there'd be about a million lives saved from that action and it's fallout.
People in the US should be taking notes. It would perhaps be better if a domestic resistance could disrupt the Trump agenda before it gets to the point that it requires bravery in the face of death, rather than merely foresight and the courage to act on it.
Why does Trump's agenda need resistance? Why do you think you might need to die for it? Be specific, what threat does he pose that is so great that you are willing to die to stop it?
The desire to sell off public lands to private entities will be a loss of public resources that we will not be able to undo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All American presidents up to this point have, to varying degrees, had a sense of self-preservation, that while their vision of America didn't necessarily align with that of other people it was what was best for the country. Maybe what was best was a war in Iraq, or a tax break for the rich, but it was at least based on some principle. Now all that's gone out the window. Policies are based on complete nonsense. Allie…
> Maybe what was best was a war in Iraq, or a tax break for the rich, but it was at least based on some principle. Was it really though? Let's just put the names Nixon and G.W Bush Jr. here. There's no reason to believe that politicians stopped being crooks since the time of H.L. Mencken. The main "principle" was catering to sponsors, rich buddies, special interests and the military-industrial complex handling out cu…
The "Trickle Down" theory has, at its basis, a firm belief that empowering the rich will be better for America. Maybe it's a flawed theory, even a harmful one, but isn't intrinsically anti-American. Even in the worst days of the Bush administration, and there were plenty of those, it was utterly unthinkable that they'd wholesale sell out the country to a foreign power.
So here we are. The line between fact and fiction is blurred because of the volume at which the lies are shouted and the frequency with which they are repeated. The press is partially guilty here, but so is the public for not taking a second to go "you know, that doesn't sound right."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a bit overly cynical. The devil wasn't openly agitating for nuclear war and trying to inflame Middle East tensions until he was Donald Trump. Perhaps all politicians are bad, but they are not all equally bad.
> I think this is a bit overly cynical. The devil wasn't openly agitating for nuclear war and trying to inflame Middle East tensions until he was Donald Trump. Don't know about "openly agitating for nuclear war", but the last 10-15 years have seen 3 wars / invasions and tons of bombing around the world. And Hillary was consistently and openly provoking certain nuclear powers and eager to get some new war going.
And who is certainly provoking biggest nuclear power _right now_.