Monday, March 26, 2018

Liberal world order?

So there has been a slew of recent articles talking about the so called "liberal world order" that is supposedly collapsing for a variety of reasons. Depending on who you listen to, the collapse is due to anything from inherent problems with the basic philosophy of the order, to the election of Donald Trump, to everything in between.

The liberal world order (or neo-liberalism as it is sometimes misdefined) is not much different from the neo-conservative movement that was previously lead by the conservatives associated with the Bush foreign policy. It's the concept that the elites (as they think of themselves) should and can garner influence over the rest of the world, to reshape it into something more appealing to their own political beliefs.

While neo-conservatives believed in military intervention and subsequent nation building to change the status quo, the new world order relies on their political, social, and financial influence to garner the results they seek.

The problem, as I see it,  is not in the means, but in the goals. Both movements rely on the idea that there should be some sort of ruling class that simply knows what is best for everyone, and that once people are under their thumb that they will come around to agreeing. This runs inherently and fundamentally different from human nature, and ignores the fundamental principals of why it is that communities generally succeed or fail.

There are two things that we should understand about human nature (as a whole). The first is that people are simply more comfortable around and seek the company of other people with whom they have the most in common with. The second is that people generally want to have at least some form of autonomy, in that they do not like to be "ruled" by people who have fundamentally different values and beliefs. With those two realities placed in the forefront, it only would make sense that a successful community is generally fairly homogeneous. By fundamental logic, diversity (in terms of values and beliefs) is bound to lead to tension, disagreement, and ultimately conflict.

This is 180 degrees from what modern liberalism of the new world order would like us to believe.

Take the video I posted from U.S. Navy Admiral William H. McRaven. He speaks of the Navy Seals crew called the munchins, who were all under 5' 5" but apparently kicked everyone's asses across the board. He mentioned that they came from different backgrounds, different religions, and were of different races. But the underlying reason that they were successful as a team was not those difference, but rather it was the shared values and shared goals of both their own specific unit, as well as the Navy Seals as a whole. They certainly were not successful because they all believed something different, and did their own thing. In fact, if anyone of them on that team decided to simply march to his own beat, that team would have probably fallen to the back of the pack. It only takes one to disrupt everything.

Same can be said about any community. A neighborhood where everyone shares certain standards of etiquette will get along fairly well.  But if someone comes along and allows their dogs to roam free and poop in everyone's yard, or someone decides to start mowing their lawn at 6:00 a.m. every Saturday morning, or someone frequently blasts loud music at 2:00 am on a weeknight, they will likely not get along very well in a neighborhood where the rest of the community holds themselves to different standards.

Whether you look at churches, clubs, exercise facilities, or most anywhere were people choose to come together as a group, they do so because of shared interests, shared values, or shared beliefs. Few things are quite as disruptive as a newbie walking into a new social situation and not respecting the etiquette that is followed by the regulars. In some of these settings, the newbie might have no idea that they are doing something wrong, but the actions will still create tension, possible conflict, and they will still be expected to eventually assimilate if they expect to get along.

If this is human nature at a micro-community level, what makes people believe that it will be any different as a macro-community level? Why is it that we suddenly believe that there is no need to have any community standards, no need to have any shared values, or no need to have any semblance of a shared belief? Why do we suddenly decide that this is somehow backwards or wrong? Why should any accept that the real standard of community should everyone doing what they want, where ever they want, expecting everyone else to tolerate it, while chastising anyone who objects as being bigoted?

That standard has never successfully existed anywhere, and for good reason.

The world did not change because Donald Trump got elected as President of the United States. The world (and human nature) is exactly the same as it has been since the beginning of civilization. The underlying problem for those who mourn the increasing resistance confronting the new liberal world order is that there never really was a new liberal world order, anymore than there was ever a new neo-conservative world order.

56 comments:

James said...

Scandinavian countries have shared values and are not interested in overthrowing their democratic socialism which has given them some of the highest living standards in the world along with great social and economic stability. To a large degree that may also be said of Germany, Canada, and the UK. They have a shared sense of all for one and one for all, wherein the rich do not enrich themselves to the detriment of the rest.

Anonymous said...

the rich do not enrich themselves to the detriment of the rest." Alky like jane

What nonsense.

James said...

Healthcare Remains Top Issue for Americans

Gallup: “Fifty-five percent of Americans worry ‘a great deal’ about the availability and affordability of healthcare, topping concerns about 14 other issues Gallup tested. Slim majorities also worry about crime and violence, federal spending and the budget deficit, and the availability of guns.”
_____________

Americans want a viable form of affordable health care for all.
Other first world countries can do it. So can we.

Indy Voter said...

So you're opposed to greater individual freedom, democratic forms of government, greater choice, free-market capitalism and private enterprise, constitutional forms of government with divided powers, an independent judiciary, separation of church and state, and free trade, C.H.? Those are all concepts the liberal world order was built on.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

We have been a "liberal" nation since Franklin D. Roosevelt with the creation of Social Security. It provided a bottom line to avoid total poverty and or be a burden upon their families. That has provided a base for the creation of a middle class.

LBJ passed Medicare, that provides a medial insurance that does not require life and death questions based upon financial situations, and helping the families from burdened with extreme medical costs. Both of these have helped create a middle class. Ronald Reagan made an infamous speech saying that we would rue the day we started Medicare

George W. Bush failed spectacularly when he tried to privatize Social Security.

Donald Trump ran on the policy of repeal and replace Obama Care. it is pretty much still in place, and will remain in place.

Donald Trump is the first President to De-legitimize the law and order system on the country, for personal reasons.

He is trying with every action to divide the nation. For reasons I cannot comprehend, your denial of his actions and lies don't matter. It appears to be your belief that 'liberals " are all irrational and divisive. He is trying to destroy the law and order in the United States. We will survive this, but we will always regret electing this monster to be our President.

Then you made this comment, where you say that should anyone display blatant bigoted behavior is not credible.

Why should any accept that the real standard of community should everyone doing what they want, where ever they want, expecting everyone else to tolerate it, while chastising anyone who objects as being bigoted?

If your neighbor decided to post the Swastika would you not be justified in calling him a bigot?

A well regulated capitalist system has brought us to be the best nation in the world.

We want a fair law and order system.

C.H. Truth said...

Indy -

Certainly, those are the concepts that the neoconservative foreign policy movement was built on... but they are not the sort of things that modern liberalism puts front and center in 2018. Hell, most liberals don't advocate those beliefs for America. They don't want individual freedoms anymore. They want to control believes and punish those who believe differently. They don't want an independent judiciary or divided power. They want liberal judges who run around the constitution to stop the President from making decisions that are his to make.

This isn't the failure that are prompting the woe is me attitudes of today. People are very specifically upset with election results across Europe and the world that mirror our 2016 election. People are tired of open borders, mass migration, and ultimately are not feeling the whole movement towards a global world order. People want to feel patriotism, and look out for their own country. This attitude is what is sticking in the collective craws of the liberal elite.

The reality is that not everyone in the world wants what you or I want. Some people want to live in a community where the church provides laws and guidance. Some may want to actually live under a socialist government controlled market system. Some may feel perfectly comfortable with a royal family at the helm. But most importantly, many many many people do not want to turn their country over to some sort of global social conscious from people who feel that they know what's best for everyone.

For lack of a better way to put it... Many people in this world want their own countries to be "great again". This isn't because of Trump. Trump is the result of the massive attitude change, not the cause of it.

C.H. Truth said...

If your neighbor decided to post the Swastika would you not be justified in calling him a bigot?

Get back to me when you have some understanding of what I wrote.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Why should any accept that the real standard of community should everyone doing what they want, where ever they want, expecting everyone else to tolerate it, while chastising anyone who objects as being bigoted?

You don't understand the implications of your comment.

Loretta said...

"Why should any accept that the real standard of community should everyone doing what they want, where ever they want, expecting everyone else to tolerate it, while chastising anyone who objects as being bigoted?"

LOL.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Hell, most liberals don't advocate those beliefs for America.

You are really out of touch with reality.

They want to control believes and punish those who believe differently. They don't want an independent judiciary or divided power. They want liberal judges who run around the constitution to stop the President from making decisions that are his to make. are constitutional. That is not his decision unless he is the dictator and can do what ever he wants. That's why he admires Putin and it appears, you agree with him.

You are arguing against the concept of thee branches of government and one of them can limit the power of the President to do any goddamn he wants to do.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Loretta, CH said this

"Why should any accept that the real standard of community should everyone doing what they want, where ever they want, expecting everyone else to tolerate it, while chastising anyone who objects as being bigoted?"

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Taking your point to the decision that the Supreme Court gave it's self the power to determine the constitutionality of any state or federal law. Your beliefs would have put you on the side of the Confederation. Marbury V Madison.Spelling might be incorrect, therefore making it invalid

Loretta said...

"Loretta, CH said this "

Yes. It's funny because you don't understand.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Yes I do

Myballs said...

Dow gained almost 700 pts yesterday. Roger probably just forgot to tell us. I'm sure he meant to and not just post on the market only when it goes down.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I noticed that. I wish I had bought in about three days before

Anonymous said...

This attitude is what is sticking in the collective craws of the liberal elite.

what i find most fascinating about the liberal elite is that they'll make a decision or choose a course of action, and the first thing they'll do is exempt themselves from it.

how many in the US congress have relied upon social security for retirement? for 0linsky-care for healthcare?

angela merkel and the rest of her refugee-loving comrades have swarmed western europe with terrorists. but it's ok because she lives in a secure gated and guarded enclave out of reach of the swine she's inflicted upon the country.

take the most and politically charged topic of the day - gun control. all these liberals who advocate various levels of gun control are free to do that because they themselves are surrounded by armed guards 24/7. our schools are about the only government facilities WITHOUT armed guards. and liberals vociferously oppose any mention of armed guards or arming teachers who would be comfortable with becoming proficient and carrying.


the bottom line is this - neoliberalism, like every other form of liberalism, has, as its foundation, a galactic level of hypocrisy. and until you completely eradicate THAT (and you never will), you'll continue to be frustrated by the things you've outlined in your post.


and btw, regarding your comments re: community. one relatively local example of that around here is Rutland VT. the mayor wanted to act unilaterally like merkel and flood the already stressed city with 100 Syrian refugees. when i say stressed, Rutland is one of the poorer larger communities in VT. opioid addiction and corresponding deaths are commonplace. unemployment is high relative to the rest of the state, and the city has been losing population. the town already had enough problems and the idiot liberal mayor wanted to burden these poor people with another. so the residents stood up and said 'fuck no' and sent the mayor packing in the next election.

as is so common, one liberal tried to impose his beliefs on a community with no input from anyone else. fortunately (and as is less common) the community prevented the liberal from imposing his will. so no matter the issue - health care, free speech, gun control, refugees - liberals, rather than defend their ideas and decisions, choose to impose them, often in the dark of night when no one is looking.

it's no wonder 0linsky found a common bond with the castro's of cuba standing in front of a likeness of the murderous che'. on occasion liberals show you their true colors.





commie said...

Anonymous Myballs said...
Dow gained almost 700 pts yesterday. Roger probably just forgot to tell us.

And you claim to have a Masters??? Market is down 3% for the month of march...Yes it was a volatile day, many more to follow!!!!!

Anonymous said...




another example of neoliberalism imposed upon a community:


As the Chicago Tribune reported this morning, University of Utah Economics Professor Richard Fowles and I have just completed an important article on the 2016 Chicago homicide spike. Through multiple regression analysis and other tools, we conclude that an ACLU consent decree triggered a sharp reduction in stop and frisks by the Chicago Police Department, which in turn caused homicides to spike. Sadly, what Chicago police officers dubbed the "ACLU effect" was real—and more homicides and shootings were the consequence.

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/03/26/the-2016-chicago-homicide-spike-explaine

Loretta said...

"it's no wonder 0linsky found a common bond with the castro's of cuba standing in front of a likeness of the murderous che'. on occasion liberals show you their true colors."

Aho.

Loretta said...

"Sadly, what Chicago police officers dubbed the "ACLU effect" was real—and more homicides and shootings were the consequence."

I don't care about Chicago anymore. Overall, Illinois is a dump, with a rating at the bottom...

Let them keep killing each other.

Anonymous said...

I don't care about Chicago anymore. Overall, Illinois is a dump, with a rating at the bottom...

Let them keep killing each other.


indeed.

but isn't it emblematic of CH's post? some of the strictest gun laws in the nation (thanks liberals!) combined with the oxymoronic highest gun murder rate in the nation (thanks liberals again!), all imposed by liberal fiat by liberals who exempt themselves from said policies by either conceal carrying themselves, or surrounding themselves with armed security. all the while prohibiting innocent law abiding innocents from protecting themselves.



Loretta said...

"but isn't it emblematic of CH's post?"

Absolutely.

Anonymous said...




in short, a liberal world order looks exactly like orwell's "1984."


Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Your world would look like Germany in 1939.

Myballs said...

We should do a thread on internet regulation. Instead of regulating news, it might have to be data. Facebook, Twitter, Google and Amazon are looking at possible major changes to the way things are done.

JMO.

Commonsense said...

Trump is right -- California is out of control

What is out of control is California’s ruling class. Much of its political agenda is hostile to basic human liberty and mocks the limits on what government should be allowed to do in an ostensibly free society.

Likely the sharpest thorn in Trump’s side is California lawmakers’ contempt of our federal system. States enjoy wide latitude to pursue their own destinies. The 10th Amendment provides states with “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,” but it doesn’t allow them to conduct their own foreign policy, which is the province of the federal executive branch.

Yet California has decided that it is a sanctuary state where federal immigration laws don’t apply. Since Jan. 1, state and local law enforcement officers have been barred by law from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement.

No matter what one feels about immigration, those who respect the federal system have to admit that this is out of bounds. Of course, the 78 state lawmakers who voted in favor of declaring California a sanctuary state think that their sort of secessionist thinking is just fine. But they have a test ahead. It’s going to be interesting to see if it’s acceptable to them for one of their cities to secede from their secession. What are they going to do with the Los Alamitos City Council, which voted on March 19 to exempt their Orange County city from the state sanctuary law?

While Brown played on the world stage, state lawmakers were hard at work at home banning plastic shopping bags from grocery stores, proposing to criminalize what they see is the irresponsible use of plastic straws, and continuing to raise taxes, which are already the most backbreaking in the nation.

If all this isn’t enough to convince the rest of the country that California lawmakers are out of control, add to it legislation that regulates cattle flatulence in the name of the climate; a law that requires greenhouse gas emissions to be cut 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, even though the law’s language says it will “at least” cost “hundreds of millions of dollars” a year; and a $15 minimum wage by 2022 that Brown admitted “may not make sense” economically and will without question depress employment.


CALEXIT this is why people are leaving.

Anonymous said...




oh alky...

like a al sharpton or joy reid reaching for the race card you jump on godwin's law like it's your fucking job. and in the process, you're psychologically projecting AGAIN.

on the contrary asshole, my team is not the one calling for gun control, gun seizures, "assault" rifle bans, or tearing down the second amendment.

my team is not stifling free speech on college campuses and elsewhere.

my team is not the one who seized a healthcare system and nationalized one-sixth of the US economy.

my team is not the folks who weaponized large swaths of the US government like the IRS, DOJ, and FBI.

my team are not the folks who are in the midst of an attempted coup against a legally elected president.

my team are not the folks who are airdropping middle east refugees into US communities with not discussion or due process.

my team are not the folks who advocate for open borders, dispensing with US sovereignty in a desperate voter registration drive.

and my team are not the folks who would stoop so low as to manipulate and use children as political human shields to exploit a tragedy and advance a political agenda.

so yeah, you can go fuck yourself with your references to hitler and 1939 germany. it's YOU and the shitstains you represent who most resemble that era in the present day.


you gonna stick around for a while alky? i'm asking because this particular topic has put me has put me in the mood to mop the floor with your old drunken ass today.

Loretta said...

"so yeah, you can go fuck yourself with your references to hitler and 1939 germany. it's YOU and the shitstains you represent who most resemble that era in the present day."

Bingo.

Anonymous said...



CALEXIT this is why people are leaving.


and NYEXIT folks are right behind them...


Of the 12 blue states that Hillary Clinton won by the largest percentage margins — Hawaii, California, Vermont, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, Illinois, Washington, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Delaware — all but three of them lost residents through domestic migration (excluding immigration) over the last 10 years.
In fact combined, all 12 Hillary Clinton states lost an average of 6 percent of their populations to net out-migration over the past decade. California and New York alone lost 3 million people in the past 10 years.

Now let’s contrast the Hillary Clinton states with the 12 states that had the largest percentage margin vote for Donald Trump. Every one of them, save Wyoming, was a net population gainer — West Virginia, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Idaho, South Dakota, Kentucky, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Nebraska and Kansas.

The move from blue to red states — almost 1,000 people every day — has been one of the greatest demographic stories in American history. If you go to states like Arizona, Florida, Tennessee and Texas these days, all you see is out of blue state license plates.

Pretty much the same pattern holds true for jobs. The job gains in the red states carried by the widest margins by Mr. Trump had about twice the job creation rate as the bluest states carried by Mrs. Clinton.

Hillary Clinton mentioned GDP numbers. While it is true that the blue states of the two coasts and several of the Midwestern states are richer than the redder states of the South and mountain regions over recent decades, she failed to mention the giant transfer of wealth from Clinton to Trump states.

IRS tax return data confirm that from 2006-2016 Hillary Clinton’s states lost $113.6 billion in combined wealth, whereas Donald Trump’s states gained $116.0 billion.
The Hillary Clinton states are in a slow bleed.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/25/no-hillary-its-the-red-states-that-are-dynamic/

Anonymous said...



Bingo


the alky's schtick never changes. we go from 'hitler and 1939 germany' to 'southern dixiecrats magically transforming into republicans' to 'donald trump is the most serious and dangerous threat to our nation in the history of the known universe.'

lather

rinse

repeat

THIS from a self-proclaimed 137 IQ, married to the most beautiful woman on the planet, and the greatest orator in the history of alky-holics anonymous...

...who's faster than a speeding PT Cruiser, and can leap tall asshats in a single bound.

cowardly king obama said...

"Roger Amick said...
Your world would look like Germany in 1939. "

And who were supporting the Nazi's in 1939? liberal Democrats like John F Kennedy and his father.

Anonymous said...



what were we saying about a liberal world order?


Senator Kirsten Gillibrand told The Nation she supports a government-backed jobs guarantee. “Guaranteed jobs programs, creating floors for wages and benefits, and expanding the right to collectively bargain are exactly the type of roles that government must take to shift power back to workers and our communities,” she said. “Corporate interests have controlled the agenda in Washington for decades so we can’t tinker at the margins and expect to rebuild the middle class and stamp out inequality. We need to get back to an economy that rewards workers, not just shareholder value and CEO pay.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-democrats-should-embrace-a-federal-jobs-guarantee/


my junior senator and chuck schumer's secretary things sounding like hugo chavez or fidel castro is the key to a successful 2020 presidential run. btw chickie, the guaranteed wage in cuba is $20/month.



Anonymous said...




And who were supporting the Nazi's in 1939? liberal Democrats like John F Kennedy and his father.


ouchie.

hey alky, "you'd better put some ice on that."*


*h/t - the big dog.






Commonsense said...

And who were supporting the Nazi's in 1939? liberal Democrats like John F Kennedy and his father.

True, Joe Kennedy publically admired the Nazies. That's why FDR sacked him from his job as ambassador to the Court of St. James.

wphamilton said...

"The liberal world order (or neo-liberalism as it is sometimes misdefined) is not much different from the neo-conservative movement that was previously lead by the conservatives associated with the Bush foreign policy. " - CH

That's wrong on many levels, foremost among which they don't even refer to the same things. Neo-conservatism is a political philosophy of interventionalism, primarily military, with the aims of ensuring US national security.

Neo-liberalism is based on the principles of sovereignty of nations, non-intervention by the State in economic affairs, and in general advocating the freedom of commerce and the democratic and capitalist ideals.

Anonymous said...


The perennial gun-control debate in America did not begin here. The same arguments for and against were made in the 1920s in the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration. Law-abiding persons complied with the law, but the Communists and Nazis committing acts of political violence did not.

In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.

The Weimar Republic’s well-intentioned gun registry became a tool for evil.
The perennial gun-control debate in America did not begin here. The same arguments for and against were made in the 1920s in the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration. Law-abiding persons complied with the law, but the Communists and Nazis committing acts of political violence did not.

In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.#ad#

In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”

During the five years of repression that followed, society was “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews.

In 1938, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act. Now that many “enemies of the state” had been removed from society, some restrictions could be slightly liberalized, especially for Nazi Party members. But Jews were prohibited from working in the firearms industry, and .22 caliber hollow-point ammunition was banned.

The time had come to launch a decisive blow to the Jewish community, to render it defenseless so that its “ill-gotten” property could be redistributed as an entitlement to the German “Volk.” The German Jews were ordered to surrender all their weapons, and the police had the records on all who had registered them. Even those who gave up their weapons voluntarily were turned over to the Gestapo.

This took place in the weeks before what became known as the Night of the Broken Glass, or Kristallnacht, occurred in November 1938. That the Jews were disarmed before it, minimizing any risk of resistance, is the strongest evidence that the pogrom was planned in advance. An incident was needed to justify unleashing the attack.

That incident would be the shooting of a German diplomat in Paris by a teenage Polish Jew. Hitler directed propaganda minister Josef Goebbels to orchestrate the Night of the Broken Glass. This massive operation, allegedly conducted as a search for weapons, entailed the ransacking of homes and businesses, and the arson of synagogues.


https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/12/how-nazis-used-gun-control-stephen-p-halbrook/


Anonymous said...



Neo-liberalism is based on the principles of sovereignty of nations, non-intervention by the State in economic affairs, and in general advocating the freedom of commerce and the democratic and capitalist ideals.

that's what it used to be. nowadays we're eager to piss away or sovereignty for new voters, large companies prefer state intervention and regulation to keep out competition, and as illustrated in the nation magazine by my junior senator, the left feels emboldened to freedom of commerce and democratic and capitalist ideals.

modern neoliberalism is everything CH described and worse. promoted by the left in general, and groups like ANTIFA and BAMN specifically.

hell, neoliberalism might not be the correct term. perhaps we should go with the term that jonah goldberg used as a title for one of his books - "liberal fascism."

al the left seems to be able to do these days is to lurch further and further left. and they think they have the mid terms in the bag? show me a platform other than 'trump sucks.' without that you don't have al voter coalition. all you have is an angry mob. easy to gin up at a rally. not so easy to coax to the polls.





C.H. Truth said...

WP - I am not using the wikipedia definition of the term. I am using the practical definition based on who and what the liberal elitists (who are writing about this) are upset about.

They are not upset with the practical list that you or Indy might provide. They are upset with things like who is being elected, what policies are politically popular, and the overall direction that world politics is going in.

Anonymous said...

Clinton said of the states that voted for Trump: "I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product … I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And [Trump’s[ whole campaign, 'Make America Great Again,' was looking backwards. You know, you didn’t like black people getting rights, you don’t like women getting jobs, you don’t want to see that Indian-American succeeding more than you are.

I understand how some of what I said upset people and can be misinterpreted. I meant no disrespect to any individual or group. And I want to look to the future as much as anybody,” Clinton said in a Facebook post this weekend.

Anonymous said...


here we go:


Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

Commonsense said...

I found this paragraph most amusing:

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

Really? So we are in a world full of liberal democracies where everyone sings kumbuya.

That and his torture logic to justify ignoring "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringe" is one if the many reasons I'm thankful he is retired from the supreme court.

Commonsense said...

To expand on it, every successful coup in Latin America, Africa, and the Caribbean has started with taking control of the national military and police.

Because they were the only ones who had the guns.

Indy Voter said...

You mean liberal elitists like Richard Haass, who was in Bush's State Department from 2001-2003 and was his special envoy to Northern Ireland? It's his article from about a week ago that comes up five or six times at the top of a Google search for "liberal world order".

wphamilton said...

"You mean liberal elitists like Richard Haass, who was in Bush's State Department ..."

I think he means the "them" as opposed to "us", which is any of "them" that we disagree with and want to argue against. "Liberal" anything is apparently just a place-holder.

So when he says some "liberal elist" is concerned about the retreat of neo-liberalism, it doesn't mean literally a Liberal, nor literally neo-liberalism. It means that "THEY (who CH disagrees with) are talking about a collapse of something having the word 'liberal' in it, and it's all because THEY want to reshape things to their LIBERAL beliefs."

And I think that "Liberal" in his philosophy simply means he disagrees with them, not necessarily "the wikipedia definition" in his words, or any other evident definition. Just them Liberals, who we're all against. Cuz they're Liberals.

wphamilton said...

Blogger Roger Amick said...
I noticed that. I wish I had bought in about three days before


I wouldn't worry about it, unless you're one who likes to gamble on the day to day movement of stocks.

What tends to get lost in the noise, from a 3-day plunge over a president's announced plans and a day or two recovery, is that the Dow index is down about 7.5% from the high in January (that high that everyone here was bragging about and attributing to "confidence" due to "Trump"). If not for my 401K automatically buying, I wouldn't be investing in stocks at all right now.

Anonymous said...

Dollar cost averaging.

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

Instead of arguing "semantics" - which of course is your default M.O.

Why don't you address the subject of the post... which is the liberal dissatisfaction of everything from the U.K. voting to leave the European Union, to the election of anti-immigration politicians in a variety of European countries, the banning of the burkini in Paris, etc, etc...

Anonymous said...




hilarious:


Rev. Al Sharpton’s half-brother was charged with murder in a Sunday shooting death in Alabama after participating in Saturday’s anti-gun “March For Our Lives,” according to a report.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/27/al-sharpton-half-brother-charged-with-murder/

Anonymous said...




THIS is CNN:





CNN

Verified account

@CNN
Follow Follow @CNN
More

"Chappaquiddick" explores one of Sen. Ted Kennedy's darkest hours https://cnn.it/2GdLeUa

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/978700711658704896



mary jo could not be reached for comment as to how dark it was for her.

Commonsense said...

Imagine that, CNN call it "tragic" for Ted Kennedy.

No mention on how "tragic" it was for Mary Jo Kopechne's family.

Anonymous said...

Lol. He lived. That is the fucking tragedy and his support of socialist freedom killing policies.

wphamilton said...

Because you're talking about "movements" that don't mean the same as I, indy or anyone else understand them. Take this

"The problem, as I see it, is not in the means, but in the goals. Both movements rely on the idea that there should be some sort of ruling class that simply knows what is best for everyone, and that once people are under their thumb that they will come around to agreeing"

But it's not really the "neo-liberal" movement (philosophy) that you mean, because you told me it's really a philosophy of whatever the "elite liberals" are complaining about. OK, but you can't just ascribe your idea of what it means to actual history -where it has different meaning - and then simply dismiss that as "semantics". It's meaningless.

And this:

"There are two things that we should understand about human nature (as a whole). The first is that people are simply more comfortable around and seek the company of other people with whom they have the most in common with. The second is that people generally want to have at least some form of autonomy, in that they do not like to be "ruled" by people who have fundamentally different values and beliefs"

is just meandering nonsense when you try to apply it to political philosophy, or foreign policy. There are MANY examples of successful communities that have diverse populations, so reality collides violently with your conclusions.

Who even knows what this is supposed to mean, "This is 180 degrees from what modern liberalism of the new world order would like us to believe." Modern liberalism, is that an offshoot on your NON-neo-liberal elite neo-liberalism? How can anyone even begin to address "the subject" when you're making it up as you go along, and everything else is "semantics"? Why would I even want to?

Write something based on historical reality, demonstrating real knowledge of the actual subject, and then I'll address it.

Indy Voter said...

WP, that's been my assessment of C.H. for at least the last five or six years.

Loretta said...

"liberal world order"

= tribalism = Marxism

Period.

wphamilton said...

Anonymous Indy Voter said...
WP, that's been my assessment of C.H. for at least the last five or six years.


I'm honestly not that harsh with my assessment. Sometimes, like this one, I don't want to just attack but he did insist and tried to poke my buttons.

C.H. does sometimes make good points and better thought-out blog posts. When he's not trying to defend a politician or attack someone.