Oligarchy in Action


nan said:

nohero said:

I won't address everything in that "Gish Gallop" of a response.  Whatever her comments are "based on", that's not the same as saying her description is correct.  And I'm sure that people who voted for her are suffering from Trump's policies, and if they ignored that possibility, then they were sadly deceived by her.

If you are upset that "many  people told me they did not care about Medicare for All or free college or a living wage or criminal justice reform", then you should also be upset about people who didn't care that, if Trump won instead of Clinton, progress towards those goals would be halted and reversed.  Which it has.
Not necessarily.  Clinton said we would never get Medicare for all and to forget about it.  She was not for free college and she only wanted $12 minimum wage in some places.  Yes, Trump is worse, but let's not ascribe positions to Clinton that she did not hold.

And I wrote "progress towards those goals".  If you don't like the fact that Clinton was honest and adult about what could be accomplished in the near term, so be it.  That doesn't change the fact that Trump was going to be and is moving backwards on those and other progressive goals.



nohero said:



nan said:

nohero said:

I won't address everything in that "Gish Gallop" of a response.  Whatever her comments are "based on", that's not the same as saying her description is correct.  And I'm sure that people who voted for her are suffering from Trump's policies, and if they ignored that possibility, then they were sadly deceived by her.

If you are upset that "many  people told me they did not care about Medicare for All or free college or a living wage or criminal justice reform", then you should also be upset about people who didn't care that, if Trump won instead of Clinton, progress towards those goals would be halted and reversed.  Which it has.
Not necessarily.  Clinton said we would never get Medicare for all and to forget about it.  She was not for free college and she only wanted $12 minimum wage in some places.  Yes, Trump is worse, but let's not ascribe positions to Clinton that she did not hold.

And I wrote "progress towards those goals".  If you don't like the fact that Clinton was honest and adult about what could be accomplished in the near term, so be it.  That doesn't change the fact that Trump was going to be and is moving backwards on those and other progressive goals.

Clinton preached incrementalism which was her way of getting people to wait forever for things that were never going to change.  It's like Martin Luther King talked about in his Letter From Birmingham Jail.  Under Obama, wealth inequality got worse.  Clinton positioned herself as continuing his neoliberal policies which is how we got to Trump.  Would have delayed his arrival by four years.  



nan said:

Clinton preached incrementalism which was her way of getting people to wait forever for things that were never going to change.  It's like Martin Luther King talked about in his Letter From Birmingham Jail.  Under Obama, wealth inequality got worse.  Clinton positioned herself as continuing his neoliberal policies which is how we got to Trump.  Would have delayed his arrival by four years.  

That's another "Gish Gallop".  No, it's not the same as what Dr. King was writing about.  Your argument is "Obama brought us Trump" and I really don't care to engage with that cr*p.


Not a Gish Gallop because, unlike Russiagate, there is actual evidence.  Here is the part of Birmingham Jail to which I refer:

" . . .

One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."


This is a specific situation, but neoliberalism basically works the same way (and MLK was anti-capitalist). The Clintons and the Obamas talk about getting us health care and a living wage and affordable college, but it never really happens. They were dedicated to the status quo.  We got a few crumbs like Obamacare, a corporate plan,  but it is the 1% who benefit from the economic recovery and Obama let Citigroup pick out his cabinet and Clinton told Wall Street they should be able to regulate themselves.  The DNC is a "privileged group" that will never give that up "voluntarily."   Hence, after the 2016 stunning defeat, they doubled down on their losing strategy. Eight years of Obama and wealth inequality went up and he bailed out the banks and crapped on the homeowners, and the cost of college skyrocketed with little help from the government. Meanwhile every other country takes these "nice things" for granted.  We have the richest country in the world and half the population is poor.  That's not because of Trump, but that is why we have Trump as president.



nan said:

Not a Gish Gallop because, unlike Russiagate, there is actual evidence.  Here is the part of Birmingham Jail to which I refer:

" . . . "

This is a specific situation, but neoliberalism basically works the same way (and MLK was anti-capitalist). The Clintons and the Obamas talk about getting us health care and a living wage and affordable college, but it never really happens. They were dedicated to the status quo.  We got a few crumbs like Obamacare, a corporate plan,  but it is the 1% who benefit from the economic recovery and Obama let Citigroup pick out his cabinet and Clinton told Wall Street they should be able to regulate themselves.  The DNC is a "privileged group" that will never give that up "voluntarily."   Hence, after the 2016 stunning defeat, they doubled down on their losing strategy. Eight years of Obama and wealth inequality went up and he bailed out the banks and crapped on the homeowners, and the cost of college skyrocketed with little help from the government. Meanwhile every other country takes these "nice things" for granted.  We have the richest country in the world and half the population is poor.  That's not because of Trump, but that is why we have Trump as president.

I am familiar with Letter From a Birmingham Jail, which is why I stated that your citation of it was wrong.  Dr. King wrote it to respond to people who, as he noted at the start: "You deplore the demonstrations that are presently taking place in Birmingham.  But I am sorry that your statement did not express a similar concern for the conditions that brought the demonstrations into being."  He was responded to criticism of his nonviolent, direct action (he was writing from jail due to arrest for participating in a civil rights demonstration).  It is not appropriate to cite him to support an argument that letting Trump win was as acceptable, or even "as moral", as supporting the Democratic nominee.

In fact, it's ironic.  Dr. King was demonstrating for voting rights.  In the 2016 presidential election, there were only two possible results.  Anyone who opposed Trump but did not vote for Clinton was voluntarily disenfranchising himself or herself.  It was the same as not bothering to vote, or being barred from voting.

Dr. King also received and responded to criticism that he was doing too little, that his nonviolent approach was "not enough" to achieve civil rights.  In 1966 he authored an article that ran in Ebony to defend the SCLC's strategy: "Nonviolence: The Only Road to Freedom".  In response to those critics he wrote: "This is no time for romantic illusions about freedom and empty philosophical debate.  This is a time for action.  What is needed is a strategy for change, a tactical program which will bring the Negro into the mainstream of American life as quickly as possible.  So far, this has only been offered by the nonviolent movement."  With all due respect, despite your distaste for Ms. Clinton, being "for revolution" but letting Trump win was neither an effective "strategy for change" nor a "tactical program."

And the part of your response that you wrote is another "Gish Gallop".  I use that term because in an earlier post you quoted an article which got the meaning wrong and misapplied it to defend Trump from proponents of the investigation.



nohero said:

I am familiar with Letter From a Birmingham Jail, which is why I stated that your citation of it was wrong.  Dr. King wrote it to respond to people who, as he noted at the start: "You deplore the demonstrations that are presently taking place in Birmingham.  But I am sorry that your statement did not express a similar concern for the conditions that brought the demonstrations into being."  He was responded to criticism of his nonviolent, direct action (he was writing from jail due to arrest for participating in a civil rights demonstration).  It is not appropriate to cite him to support an argument that letting Trump win was as acceptable, or even "as moral", as supporting the Democratic nominee.

In fact, it's ironic.  Dr. King was demonstrating for voting rights.  In the 2016 presidential election, there were only two possible results.  Anyone who opposed Trump but did not vote for Clinton was voluntarily disenfranchising himself or herself.  It was the same as not bothering to vote, or being barred from voting.

Dr. King also received and responded to criticism that he was doing too little, that his nonviolent approach was "not enough" to achieve civil rights.  In 1966 he authored an article that ran in Ebony to defend the SCLC's strategy: "Nonviolence: The Only Road to Freedom".  In response to those critics he wrote: "This is no time for romantic illusions about freedom and empty philosophical debate.  This is a time for action.  What is needed is a strategy for change, a tactical program which will bring the Negro into the mainstream of American life as quickly as possible.  So far, this has only been offered by the nonviolent movement."  With all due respect, despite your distaste for Ms. Clinton, being "for revolution" but letting Trump win was neither an effective "strategy for change" nor a "tactical program."

And the part of your response that you wrote is another "Gish Gallop".  I use that term because in an earlier post you quoted an article which got the meaning wrong and misapplied it to defend Trump from proponents of the investigation.

The reason we have Trump is because of 30 years of neoliberal policies from both parties.  That has led us to be the richest country in the world with half the people so poor they can't afford a $1000 emergency.  Trump did not cause this situation. He is not the problem--he is a symptom of the problem. I doubt King, a Democratic socialist, would have supported a corportist warmonger like Hillary Clinton either, or her husband who helped expand mass incarceration.  Now we are stuck with Trump, who is beyond horrible, but you are supporting the institution that got us to this place.  The DNC uses Trump and Russia to distract from the fact that they ran an unelectable candidate (who had secretly bought the nomination) in the last election and that they don't want to move to the left one bit. They would rather lose than let a progressive win because the donors don't pay for progressive votes.  They are a corrupt organization that reflects the wishes of donors over people.  They scream about Trump, but then they vote to give him more money for the military than he even requests and warrantless surveillance power (I'm sure MLK would be on board with warrantless surveillance, right?).  You seem to feel that this corrupt organization, who throws us some crumbs here and there will someday lead us incrementally to Medicare for all, free college and a living wage.  I'm thinking it is going to be more like forever, because the DNC is dedicated to the status quo. 



nan said:



nohero said:


I am familiar with Letter From a Birmingham Jail, which is why I stated that your citation of it was wrong.  Dr. King wrote it to respond to people who, as he noted at the start: "You deplore the demonstrations that are presently taking place in Birmingham.  But I am sorry that your statement did not express a similar concern for the conditions that brought the demonstrations into being."  He was responded to criticism of his nonviolent, direct action (he was writing from jail due to arrest for participating in a civil rights demonstration).  It is not appropriate to cite him to support an argument that letting Trump win was as acceptable, or even "as moral", as supporting the Democratic nominee.

In fact, it's ironic.  Dr. King was demonstrating for voting rights.  In the 2016 presidential election, there were only two possible results.  Anyone who opposed Trump but did not vote for Clinton was voluntarily disenfranchising himself or herself.  It was the same as not bothering to vote, or being barred from voting.

Dr. King also received and responded to criticism that he was doing too little, that his nonviolent approach was "not enough" to achieve civil rights.  In 1966 he authored an article that ran in Ebony to defend the SCLC's strategy: "Nonviolence: The Only Road to Freedom".  In response to those critics he wrote: "This is no time for romantic illusions about freedom and empty philosophical debate.  This is a time for action.  What is needed is a strategy for change, a tactical program which will bring the Negro into the mainstream of American life as quickly as possible.  So far, this has only been offered by the nonviolent movement."  With all due respect, despite your distaste for Ms. Clinton, being "for revolution" but letting Trump win was neither an effective "strategy for change" nor a "tactical program."

And the part of your response that you wrote is another "Gish Gallop".  I use that term because in an earlier post you quoted an article which got the meaning wrong and misapplied it to defend Trump from proponents of the investigation.

The reason we have Trump is because of 30 years of neoliberal policies from both parties.  That has led us to be the richest country in the world with half the people so poor they can't afford a $1000 emergency.  Trump did not cause this situation. He is not the problem--he is a symptom of the problem. I doubt King, a Democratic socialist, would have supported a corportist warmonger like Hillary Clinton either, or her husband who helped expand mass incarceration.  Now we are stuck with Trump, who is beyond horrible, but you are supporting the institution that got us to this place.  The DNC uses Trump and Russia to distract from the fact that they ran an unelectable candidate (who had secretly bought the nomination) in the last election and that they don't want to move to the left one bit. They would rather lose than let a progressive win because the donors don't pay for progressive votes.  They are a corrupt organization that reflects the wishes of donors over people.  They scream about Trump, but then they vote to give him more money for the military than he even requests and warrantless surveillance power (I'm sure MLK would be on board with warrantless surveillance, right?).  You seem to feel that this corrupt organization, who throws us some crumbs here and there will someday lead us incrementally to Medicare for all, free college and a living wage.  I'm thinking it is going to be more like forever, because the DNC is dedicated to the status quo. 

Don't you have anything new????? It's getting a bit boring for this endless prattle of talking points, ad nauseum.



Dennis_Seelbach said:



Don't you have anything new????? It's getting a bit boring for this endless prattle of talking points, ad nauseum.

No one is forcing you to be here, on a thread that I started.  Feel free to leave.



nan said:



Dennis_Seelbach said:



Don't you have anything new????? It's getting a bit boring for this endless prattle of talking points, ad nauseum.

No one is forcing you to be here, on a thread that I started.  Feel free to leave.

Because I love watching folks like you, making stupid commentary I'm just asking that you update things a bit to make it even more fascinating. Consider it a critical review of style.



Dennis_Seelbach said:



nan said:



Dennis_Seelbach said:



Don't you have anything new????? It's getting a bit boring for this endless prattle of talking points, ad nauseum.

No one is forcing you to be here, on a thread that I started.  Feel free to leave.

Because I love watching folks like you, making stupid commentary I'm just asking that you update things a bit to make it even more fascinating. Consider it a critical review of style.

How about I stop responding to trolls?  That is my new update.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.