Random political thought thread.

[ceecee]

Nixon was more along the line of modern dems and European centrists. I mean, he was still a shit, and inspired/influenced the imperial presidencies of the last few decades. Not to say he was the first imperial president. But he did enact or try to enact some policies that were progressive by current Republican standards.

People’s History is a great book, I’m using it as my son’s primary history text this year.

The reviews for it on Amazon are hilarious.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

There was a farmers and labourers party a long time ago, I think it gets a mention in Peoples History of The United States. Or maybe it was Chomsky.

I'd say its because the ethnic divisions, like into virtual townships and territories or even states, organized crime and prohibition have prevented it happening.

For a while I adopted a position that class trumps everything, but more recently I've come to the conclusion that there is no way of understanding the current state of the U.S. without making race a big part of it. Pushing racial divisions to preserve the oligarchy is something that's been going on for a long time in this country, dating back to colonial Virginia at least.

 

[Jaguar]

"We're going to drop the hammer on his head every goddamn day."

Fine by me, fellas.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

For a while I adopted a position that class trumps everything, but more recently I've come to the conclusion that there is no way of understanding the current state of the U.S. without making race a big part of it. Pushing racial divisions to preserve the oligarchy is something that's been going on for a long time in this country, dating back to colonial Virginia at least.

1492 and 1619.

 

[Jaguar]

Blexit.

I should have known:

Candace Owens' BLEXIT group pays for some attendees' travel to Trump's White House event - ABC News

 

[The Cat]

Senator Grassley R-IA, reminds me of a vulture...

 

[ceecee]

I don't watch SNL, not for years but I made an exception this week because I love Bill Burr. This clip is priceless.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I don't watch SNL, not for years but I made an exception this week because I love Bill Burr. This clip is priceless.

I wanted to see it after reading about a supportive post on my FB feed. Yeah, it's a pretty salient point.

On the other hand, he was mean to Baby Yoda.

Also I have to see if I can find that Jack White performance.

 

[FemMecha]

Here's a random thought that is a conspiracy about a conspiracy because why not? Maybe dear old Jason (i.e. Qanon) was actually invited to the Epstein parties as well and created this weird conspiracy theory as a PR stunt that would appeal to Trump's base. It provides an explanation for Trump's extensive connections with the now FBI arrested kingpins of the child sex trafficking industry. Trump was their neighbor, they went to each others parties for years, Trump said about Epstein,

"I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it - Jeffrey enjoys his social life."


Trump knew. Qanon makes that overt, public record established associations palatable by saying Trump is the secret hero that is going to unravel the whole thing, but it seems the FBI is doing their job without him. What if Qanon is one of them too? Sorry, but I had to live with a Qanon cult member for six years, so these things occur to me.

 

[Lark]

Nixon was more along the line of modern dems and European centrists. I mean, he was still a shit, and inspired/influenced the imperial presidencies of the last few decades. Not to say he was the first imperial president. But he did enact or try to enact some policies that were progressive by current Republican standards.

People’s History is a great book, I’m using it as my son’s primary history text this year.

True on the Nixon front, I'm surprised that all that has been virtually erased from history, the guaranteed income stuff and I've read good books, usually all published at that time and bought from junk shops which show that it was being talked about among the public, like churches, therapists, others and it all seems to have vanished from public discourse very quickly.

Like Erich Fromm's book On Disobedience was republished with, among other omissions, the chapters on UBI and mentioning these developments removed. I cant really account for that besides a real serious deliberate effort to keep it out of the public mind/discourse. Which I think proves that it has at the very least a real possibility to change things, threaten social control, domestic servitude, servility and defeat the power money grants to a very few at present.

Peoples History is not without its faults, I personally prefer Rogue State and even Oliver Stone's documentaries about the US' foreign policy too. Although I dont think those things can necessarily be understood in isolation, for all the machavellian machinations of the US special interests they've been matched step for step by others, sometimes its national elites, sometimes its racists, sometimes agencies or oligarchs.

Some of the later Le Carre novels are good because they illustrate well how major events can be triggered almost by accident or illustrate how there's a "great game" but sometimes the individual plots or initiatives of just one person has its own damn trajectory.

 

[Jaguar]

Because she's a mother with children she's ideal for a judge? How about if she fetches your slippers and newspaper? You people, man . . .

 

[Red Memories]

Because she's a mother with children she's ideal for a judge? How about if she fetches your slippers and newspaper? You people, man . . .

It is ridiculous although I think they are considering her a "beacon of feminism" for being able to both be a mother and have a strong professional career.

A lot more goes into being a judge than this, let alone being an advocate for women's rights...

 

[Jaguar]

You know a speaking voice is offensive when you'd prefer the sound of a gun going off.

 

[Jaguar]

It is ridiculous although I think they are considering her a "beacon of feminism" for being able to both be a mother and have a strong professional career.

A lot more goes into being a judge than this, let alone being an advocate for women's rights...

Her affiliation with the religious group 'People of Praise' wiped out any chance of a reasonable person considering her a feminist. Far from it. The group is known for its subjugation of women and authoritarianism. For all I know, she calls her husband "master."

 

[ceecee]

It is ridiculous although I think they are considering her a "beacon of feminism" for being able to both be a mother and have a strong professional career.

A lot more goes into being a judge than this, let alone being an advocate for women's rights...

She is no advocate for women's rights.

 

[Coriolis]

Because she's a mother with children she's ideal for a judge? How about if she fetches your slippers and newspaper? You people, man . . .

Well, we could do worse than have an Italian grandmother as president.

It is ridiculous although I think they are considering her a "beacon of feminism" for being able to both be a mother and have a strong professional career.

A lot more goes into being a judge than this, let alone being an advocate for women's rights...

Phyllis Schlafly made a career of gallivanting around the country telling women they should stay home and take care of their families.

 

[Jaguar]

Any time I want to laugh, I dig up this old gem:

 

[Red Memories]

[MENTION=4050]ceecee[/MENTION] [MENTION=195]Jaguar[/MENTION] [MENTION=9811]Corvus[/MENTION] I feel like I should make it clear since my comment apparently did not come out correctly, my point is they were trying to use that to make her comparable to RBG's level of feminism and also judge material but fall quite short because that does not make someone worthy of being a judge or worthy of being assumed to be a beacon of women's rights. I do not consider her to be a strong appearance of women's rights at all. I feel maybe my comment was taken to thought that I felt she is when I do not.

carry on. :3

 

[Coriolis]

[MENTION=4050]ceecee[/MENTION] [MENTION=195]Jaguar[/MENTION] [MENTION=9811]Corvus[/MENTION] I feel like I should make it clear since my comment apparently did not come out correctly, my point is they were trying to use that to make her comparable to RBG's level of feminism and also judge material but fall quite short because that does not make someone worthy of being a judge or worthy of being assumed to be a beacon of women's rights. I do not consider her to be a strong appearance of women's rights at all. I feel maybe my comment was taken to thought that I felt she is when I do not.

carry on. :3

I understood that, was just adding fuel to the fire, as it were. I do think the experience of women in our society gets much less representation in the halls of government than it should. By that I mean the experience of raising kids - as in direct childcare responsibility, caring for elders, and having to make those tough decisions about balancing work and family. We can improve matters by electing and appointing more women to public office. But we can also address it by encouraging men to embrace their share of those responsibilities and concerns. Yes, you can have a family and be a feminist. The Italian grandmother I referenced is Nancy Pelosi, who obviously fits the bill. I mentioned her for the contrast.

 

[Red Memories]

another note - I really dislike the argument that speaking against her is "anti-catholic" sentiment when Joe Biden, Pelosi, and AOC are all people who have mentioned their catholicism. Whether I like them or not is not the point - I don't think these people have an "anti-catholic" bias. In my mind, I see it as an anti-cult bias. She was part of a strange group. Charismatics are a...different kind of Christian to say the least. One I do not readily agree with myself.