#1681
[account deactivated]
#1682
Online
Post rating: ~

thirdplace posted:

insta_gramsci posted:

this is more of what i meant, i apologize for not being clear. in terms of surface politics hrc is basically allowing trump to (appear to) position himself to the left of her issues related to neoliberalism and us-russia cooperation. the latter one is especially funny because of its historical irony.

trump is doing this for entirely self-serving and conceptually wrong reasons, of course, but the way that the left/right polarity has shifted within the paradigm of us electoral politics is kind of surreal

sorry for misunderstanding. but: if we deny trump's anti-war pretensions--and to be clear, i'm not just saying they're there for the wrong reasons, i'm saying they're totally meaningless and will not be honored in even the most trivial way--doesn't the kernel of truth in the liberal "you're just hatin hildog b/c of ur white manlet privilege" argument stand unrebutted?


it's a deliberate strategy of the hillary campaign (https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/757603036978089984) and the liberal media to freak the hell out about russia and putin, to accuse trmp of being cozy with the Enemy, and so on. moreover we know that's more than just talk from her end as evidenced by her track record of aggression against russia and russian-aligned regime. the legitimacy of trump's anti-imperialism is, and any commentary on white male privilege seems to be, to me, immaterial as to whether we are indeed seeing an interesting/ironic dem/rep inversion on scaremongering about russia

#1683
Post rating: ~
i'm not talking about the russia thing. which i guess makes me a fucko since both you and insta_gramski seem to want to talk about it and it is interesting, but I kind of want harp on this

insta_gramsci posted:

it's not new, but the inversion/appropriation of identity politics by US liberals to tow the party line has reached some kind of apotheosis this election cycle. i've been told by several liberals that my criticisms and assessments of clinton are rooted in my privilege as a white male, and that the risk of a trump presidency is a far greater threat to persons of color/lgbt people. apparently the only persons of color that exist are in the first world and are not evading the honduran military apparatus, sweating in shoe factories in malaysia, or looking for their grandfather's arm in the sand in northwestern pakistan.

because i've seen it more than once both here and elsewhere, and it would be trenchant as fuck if it were true that HRC posed a larger threat to people outside of america than Trump. but I don't think it is

#1684
Online
Post rating: +
okay. well, i do believe trump to be the greater threat to the world, but, based on hillarys bloody history of imperialism, i dont find there to be a relevant case to make in terms of her being better for people of color globally. she may be, by some minor degree, but she's still so aggressively terrible in that respect that if you ask me it is correct to say that for non-amerikkkkans the term "lesser evil" does not apply to either relevant candidate and so the case that it's "white" to oppose hillary is wrong
#1685
Post rating: -
i'd agree with that, i just think the domestic disparity acts as a tiebreaker. well that's settled, i'm voting for the lady who killed vilerat
#1686
Post rating: +
i haven't thought enough about who might constitute the greater threat to the world--as has been said here before, probably in this thread, it's not necessarily what trump can or would do but the forces that he would enable (and of course already has)--but the insidious nature of hrc's neoliberalism and militarism worries me no less than trump's bellicose batshittery

what i was trying to articulate earlier was that there seems to be a built-in limit in the US liberal mind to use a sort-of faux identity politics to limit their purview from straying beyond US borders, with small exceptions like highly simulated events such as "Iraq", or plot points like "Syrian Refugees", which are empty, isolated referents with no before and after--that is, Republicans' fault. there's no sense of the class struggle or the effects of imperialism, no sense whatsoever of a dialectical analysis, because they have been hardwired to factor out the spaces (geographical and intellectual) in which these kinds of questions can arise in the first place. i mentioned that earlier by way of trying to express an interest in the postmodern dimensions of how the spectrum of thought is (for lack of a better term) controlled in a society that breathes information

not so much a manufacturing of consent as a narrowing of ascent

Edited by insta_gramsci ()

#1687
Post rating: +
To me here is the difference. In pactice neither will probably be that different, fine whatever it's not really worth arguing about. However, if trump did what he talks about doing (overseas force reduction, less of the overall NATO bill etc.) it would result in a reduction in American imperialist force projection, however slight, however beside the point of why he's Doing it. On the other hand, if we take Hillary by her campaign promises, she will build a great army of dark "Golems" from the bones of the slain of the Middle East, animate them using the 99 names of God only the IMF knows, and use them to start a land war with Russia.
#1688
[account deactivated]
#1689
Post rating: ~

thirdplace posted:

insta_gramsci posted:

this is more of what i meant, i apologize for not being clear. in terms of surface politics hrc is basically allowing trump to (appear to) position himself to the left of her issues related to neoliberalism and us-russia cooperation. the latter one is especially funny because of its historical irony.

trump is doing this for entirely self-serving and conceptually wrong reasons, of course, but the way that the left/right polarity has shifted within the paradigm of us electoral politics is kind of surreal

sorry for misunderstanding. but: if we deny trump's anti-war pretensions--and to be clear, i'm not just saying they're there for the wrong reasons, i'm saying they're totally meaningless and will not be honored in even the most trivial way--doesn't the kernel of truth in the liberal "you're just hatin hildog b/c of ur white manlet privilege" argument stand unrebutted?



How dare you post something this deeply stupid and then downvote me. Mods?

#1690
Post rating: +
I think Trump will successfully murder a marginally smaller number of human beings than Hitler Clinton would if she was crowned head Hitler in charge of USA, although not out of any kind of morality. I just think he'll alienate all the collaborators and lapdogs which are a critical factor in overseas military adventurism. If you're calling for the extermination of Islam, seems like Bahrain and Kuwaitand Turkey and Pakistan may not be as willing as in the past to help us murder all their neighbors.
#1691
Post rating: +++++
i mean, it's pretty much impossible to imagine a better candidate for the american deep state than hillary clinton. beyond even the standard blood tithe all american politicians must pay to imperialism, she has pursued to sacrifice entire populations to ascend the ladder of lichdom. you probably don't remember, but hillary was pushing for the bombing of serbia in 1999. she bragged about convincing bill how necessary it was. as secretary of state, she actively engineered libya. she has also pursued the war in syria, and threatened to stop russian intervention militarily. how many more millions of lives do you need to see her feed to america's gaping maw before you begin to doubt her that she is the lesser evil?
#1692
Post rating: +
In fact she was so enthusiastic about bombing Serbia that she went there to do it personally and killed a sniper in hand to hand combat when he tried to hijack her helicopter
#1693
ive gender
Post rating: ~
what's cool as hell is how once Hillary wins and and the next four years become fundamentally indistinguishable from the Bush terms, an exciting and far more electable fascist menace will arise in 2020 (and probably win!!!!)
#1694
"Jpg." - Hank Hill
Post rating: ~
hillary supported the war on libya while openly and unequivocally believing that the motivation was naked french imperialism
#1695
Online
Post rating: ~
where did she say that
#1696
"Jpg." - Hank Hill
Post rating: +
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/6528
#1697
Post rating: ~
Someone once posted that she did a coup in Honduras because the president made her meet his whole family and there was lots of them and it pissed her off. While I'm totally willing to believe that, I would LOVE a credible source because other people I've mentioned that around don't, and I've never been able to find corroboration of that detail, just lots of discussion and handwringing about the overwhelmingly obvious fact that she and obama did enthusiastically support the coup.
#1698
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating: +
That was in my coup article and im frantically searching for my source I specifically wrote "this is true" lol. thats why i should cite. fuck me
#1699
Post rating: ~
that seems like the kind of thing that would be a lot of fun to twitter during some big important thing at the DNC if you're the type of person that thinks twitter stuff is fun and cool which is NOT me.

Thanks swampman, I will fuck you
#1700
Online
Post rating: ~

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/6528


pro click

#1701
[account deactivated]
#1702
YUNG JIRO AKA SHOWA STUNNA AKA
Post rating: +
She basically told Vilerat to eat a butt
#1703
[account deactivated]
#1704
[account deactivated]
#1705
Post rating: ~
ALLEGEDLY
#1706
[account deactivated]
#1707
YUNG JIRO AKA SHOWA STUNNA AKA
Post rating: ~
hdr22@earthlink.net: huehuehue
#1708
Post rating: ~

Keven posted:

How dare you post something this deeply stupid and then downvote me. Mods?

sorry that the dumb but um still kinda true liberal critique of myopic hipster sanguinity re: the walking talking klan rally is so fucking offensive to you

#1709
Post rating: +
heh i was thinking the yesterday about "what if i'm wrong, not because trump will attempt fewer bomb imports, but because he'll try and get blocked by that liberal anti-war left that disappears every time a democrat gets in the white house" but then I remembered that the anti-war left has never ever successfully stopped a war, while meanwhile obama tried to invade syria in 2013 and got blocked by the republican congress because of how much they hate black people. lesser evildom wins again
#1710
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating: +

thirdplace posted:

Keven posted:

How dare you post something this deeply stupid and then downvote me. Mods?

sorry that the dumb but um still kinda true liberal critique of myopic hipster sanguinity re: the walking talking klan rally is so fucking offensive to you

What does "dumb but still kinda true" mean here. Because nobody's shown me anything except their own paranoia to support the hypothesis that a Trump presidency would be "objectively" "worse" than a Clinton presidency.

#1711
Post rating: +
Trump supports the police loudly and without reservation in the current domestic conflict regarding who should bear the risks in police-citizen encounters while the democrat supports androdyne and technocratic reforms of the type that have proven to be better than nothing in many cities, a distinction which becomes somewhat more important considering the roll which internal pig culture plays in these shootings. He also supports a tripling of border enforcement staffing and mass deportations, and even a fraction of that policy would be a disaster (contra the democrat who would undoubtedly maintain the status quo which capital has carefully set up for it's own purposes) these moderate distinctions would be drowned out entirely if, as kevin did in the post i judiciously downvoted, you assume that trump would be less likely to use the military overseas, but personally "nobody's shown me anything" to lead me into believing the white supremacist third-grader rendition of "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."
#1712
Post rating: ~

Petrol posted:

Jerry Falwell Jr just called Trump the "blue collar billionaire"


This is old but I was scrolling back looking for something and this pic caught my eye, and I noticed their hats aren't the usual ones, they're saying Make Florida Red Again - evidence of Trump campaigns secret marxism???

#1713
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating: +
thirdplace, it is immaterial whether Clinton, Trump, or Sanders wins the presidency. Any of them will pursue the same foreign policy objectives which must be sustained by domestic oppression and privatization. You are not being asked to choose between different levels of border security and police activity, but rather an administrative and almost cosmetic detail of how they brand the oppression. Nothing they say can be trusted as a legitimate representation of their views, except what jives with their past behavior. Clinton didn't just criticize law enforcement - she did it in a speech to the NAACP, one of those things that even liberals aren't conned by, but drives a huge portion of conservative rage. It can't even be trusted that the American presidential election is legitimate, especially this one. Clinton and Trump are friends. Sanders and Clinton have lived in the same microcosm for decades.

Just don't worry about it and keep working to develop / participate in the Marxist line and support a real candidate. Nobody is going to remember your rationale for a strategic vote for a shit candidate, whether they win or lose, but people actually will remember if you can correctly explain what is going on.
#1714
Post rating: ~
All I can say is I'm not the one sayin there's a chance trump has a possibility of standing in the way of the American empire. I do disagree that there's no difference between them & think there is a range of potential liberal policies that reflect the preferences of particular piles capital or subclasses of the bourgeois that, while making no difference from a revolutionary perspective, can make a difference in, e.g., people gettin murdered by the police, but I wouldn't be talking about that (least of all here) if i didn't keep reading posts acting like it means a damn thing from that Trump talked some shit on NATO or whatever
#1715
mt.real
Post rating: ~
yes, exactly, this whole catastrophe of an election cycle seems like an excellent opportunity to point out all the transparent equivalencies in the party's positions. no one you'd ever want to talk to for more than ten seconds wants either candidate in power. the conversation writes itself

Edited by drwhat ()

#1716
Post rating: ~

drwhat posted:

yes, exactly, this whole catastrophe of an election cycle seems like an excellent opportunity to point out all the transparency equivalencies in the party's positions. no one you'd ever want to talk to for more than ten seconds wants either candidate in power. the conversation writes itself

too bad 90% of the opposition to one of those candidates boils down to mommie issues instead of anything real or important

#1717
Post rating: ~

thirdplace posted:

drwhat posted:

yes, exactly, this whole catastrophe of an election cycle seems like an excellent opportunity to point out all the transparency equivalencies in the party's positions. no one you'd ever want to talk to for more than ten seconds wants either candidate in power. the conversation writes itself

too bad 90% of the opposition to one of those candidates boils down to mommie issues instead of anything real or important



Bitch retard. Idiot!

#1718
[account deactivated]
#1719
Post rating: ~
he's just mad about the unlawful violation of proper confidentiality protocols. LOCK HER UP
#1720
Kurdt
Post rating: +
Trump's constant talk about "counter-punching" is a coded signal of his embracing the dialectic