Hillary

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

It's worth noting that liberal doesn't mean what it used to. Or, perhaps a better way to put it is that these days the context and environment has changed: as the right and left move farther apart, liberal has generally come to refer to those closer to the middle--moderates--whereas the left has taken on the moniker of "progressive" and the right has more or less kept the name, "Republican." So, Hillary strikes me as a liberal, but certainly not a progressive (no matter how hard she tries to fake it). People like Warren and Sanders are progressives and I think we are clear on who the Republicans are, although the moderate ones seem to have fallen by the wayside.

IOW, liberal doesn't equate to "left" anymore. Of course, words are what we make them...

[Steve James]

"Liberal" is just a category people use now as a smear. It doesn't require any thought at all.

[shawnsegler]

I tend to use the word Liberal since I'm old, but you'd probably say I was Progressive in my views, and FWIW I would put Harris there too.

I'm of the opinion that the whole left right paradigm is pretty weak in describing actual reality which is more complicated that having just 2 sides to every issue and as our society moves away from the homogeneous mold it was forced into for so long it's becoming less and less representative of how things actually are.

I'm fond of the term Maajid Nawaaz coined- The Regressive Left to describe the folks who have this calcified, overly PC view of the world. Very much the Kool Aid drinkers who have their ideas of what it is to be a liberal (or progressive or lefty..bleh) spoon fed to them and just go sheepishly with the majorities or their Gurus..like Chomsky's views on any subject.

Here's a good talk on the subject...it also addresses the bullshit slander job the regressive left has painted Harris with.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

Hmm, I agree that "liberal" is usually a smear from the Republicans. I think it is a bit softer from many progressives, although still a label accompanied with varying degrees of contempt. I think there are still lots of self identifying liberals who fall politically where I indicated above. I still know people who call themselves liberals and use the term without any negative connotation.

I don't usually use liberal as a smear.

[shawnsegler]

I still know people who call themselves liberals and use the term without any negative connotation.

S- raises hand

[Dmitri]

Some people like to liberally smear cream cheese on their bagels. Just wanted to use both of those words in a positive connotation.

[shawnsegler]

And in some way the country is the bagel and the cream cheese is dividends of support for being a citizen.

S

[Taste of Death]

Taste of Death, a monkey on someone's shoulder (back?) is not the same as calling someone a monkey. This was a civil discussion until you started trolling it. Cut it out.

It was a cartoon of Obama wearing a "Missing Links Golf and Country Club" shirt that included an ape carrying a golf club. It would be hard for the person who posted it to miss those details and their implications.

[Steve James]

Being a smear and being used as a smear are different, though. I'd prefer if someone ask me how I stand on an issue than label me because I happen to take a particular stand on one issue. But, usually, when people put a label on someone, they start to talk as if they know what that person thinks about everything. It makes it much easier to hate.

The other label that is meaningful precisely because it's never really clear what it means is "pc." As you must know, all "liberals" are pc And, not long ago (even with Obama) that equated to "communist" --and we all know how bad they are. However, when people point to the programs and policies espoused by "liberals," I can't say I disagree with them. Otoh, on some economic issues, I consider myself conservative. That's why I'm an independent, but I don't mind people calling me a liberal based on my stance on any issue.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

Hey Steve, I hear you. But, of course there is an efficiency to the use of generic categorization. Just ask Derrida.

Now, maybe I'll have some shmear with my lox tomorrow. Pass the capers!

[Michael]

This is not all I know about Hillary, but it is certainly the Hillary I know.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

Please take a moment to savor her facial expressions, to delicately appreciate her tone of voice, and to note her jubilation at the torture death of the leader of a country with six million citizens, who had the highest standard of living in all of Africa, a country that was plunged into murderous chaos by war hawks like Hillary, done in the immediate aftermath of a similar situation in Iraq, so lesson not learned.

Libya was made into the springboard for terrorists world wide to begin their commute into Turkey, and then into Syria, where they have contributed to a refugee crisis that has few, if any immediate consequences for warmongers like Hillary or her constituents.

Do you think the person in this interview cares about anything except power?

"We came, we saw, he died." It's a wonder she doesn't sell t-shirts.

[Steve James]

This is a toughie. Was Qaddafy good for Africa? or Libya? or Qaddafy? Many Libyans had said that he was only interested in personal wealth and power. For instance, he wanted to be appointed "President of Africa." Megalomaniac? Some might call him that Terrorist? Admittedly so.

Then we have HIllary. Was the U.S. right in encouraging and supporting Q's downfall? With my imperfect knowledge of him and the situation, I'd have to say that I don't know. I can say that it is par for the course, and wasn't the first time it's happened. It comes down to whether I would ever agree with intervention, and I would.

Remember the Crimea/Russia/Ukraine situation? Do people think Putin was right to introduce troops there, or in Syria? Is he only about obtaining power? Does that make him a good leader? That's what makes the question you present about Hillary tough. Sure, I could say that she's cold-blooded and power-hungry. Otoh, if she's pitted against Trump (or Carson, Cruz, Rubio), then those qualities will not have anything to do with my decision. I have no problem going for Bernie

[onebir]

Remember the Crimea/Russia/Ukraine situation? Do people think Putin was right to introduce troops there, or in Syria? Is he only about obtaining power? Does that make him a good leader?

On the latter points, according to Boris Kagarlitsky - who I'd never heard of but makes a persuasive case in an interesting talk - it seems Putin runs Russia by treating the country as a coalition of interests and being fairly evenhanded with them when making major decisions:
http://radio4all.net/index.php/program/84525

That seems not so different to 'Western democracies' (which in turn are seeming less and less different to blatant... non-democracies).

Isn't the (oft-repeated) fact that "Libya had the highest standard of living in all of Africa" a reflection of
- a high oil/people ratio
- a relatively weak dictator who kept power by distributing oil wealth in a relatively egalitarian way (cf Putin - a strong not-quite-dictator - whose mainly spreads it around his oligarchs')
- Africa's failure (thanks to corruption &/ Western intervention) elsewhere to produce remotely egalitarian societies?

None of those factors justified ousting(/killing) Qaddafy, they don't seem reflect particularly well on him as a ruler. (I also found Hilary's jubilation disturbing.)

[chud]

...

[Michael]

I don't see anything from Bernie to indicate a reduction in US militarism or oligarchy. Wish I could say differently, maybe I'm wrong.

Libya and Europe were better off with Gadaffi and stability. What's the alternative? I see one at the moment in Libya that is worse, as well as: Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine and Syria. Throw in Iran, what's the common denominator? Maybe it's all over my pointy, idealistic head and Gadaffi's murder will be the transition to a benevolent oil conglomerate pacifying the region.

The terrorism label at this level (state vs. state accusations) is difficult for me to consistently accept; its meaning is lost one me more often than not, fading into Eurasia Eastasia as the memory hole beckons. Iran jetliner '86, Lockerbie, flight 007, MH17. NATO did not have UNSC authorization to bomb Libya in 2011 or Yugoslavia in 1999.

Not that I dismiss everything mentioned, I just want a candidate who is not an obvious warhawk or displaying psychopathic tendencies in public. USA candidates are happily on camera saying things that would probably have embarrassed our favorite 20th century tyrants.