Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3311
  • Joined

Posts posted by hpslugga

  1. A more rehabilitated version of this argument would be to say Perot was a progressive under the classical formulation of "Progressivism" as defined by the Progressive era. That I could somewhat see, though I wouldn't totally buy into that. But under today's definition of progressive? No way.

  2. 26 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    My argument is if you were to pigeonhole Ross Perot into an ideological camp, progressive would be the best fit. 

    He’s not really a conservative or liberal in the traditional or modern sense but he was a radical reformer.  While he doesn’t pass every purity test, he’s closer to being a progressive than a moderate or a hardline liberal/conservative. 

    1. That's not saying much, considering how well to the right the parties of the two candidates he ran against 27 years ago were (and even worse today).

    2. Even if he was to the left of them, that in no way makes him a progressivist. Yeah he may have been closer to that than Clinton or Bush, but when you have one cup holding water at 115 degrees and another holding water at 90 degrees, that does not in any way mean the latter could be defined as "freezing cold." Similarly, the former isn't "boiling hot" either.

  3. 32 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

    While there are important things happening on the big stage, Betsy is quietly going about her agenda. What is it that conservatives are always hammering home about free speech?

    https://thehill.com/opinion/education/463356-betsy-devoss-playbook-of-political-correctness

    The upshot of the article is that Duke and UNC hosted a conference: Conflict over Gaza. North Carolina rep, George Holding (R) objected to the content and DeVos ordered an investigation and threatened to terminate its grant to the joint Consortium because :

    The article goes on to state:

    Well, duh.

    Wait til they get ahold of the Gender Studies programs. I suppose any monies they save will go to her security detail:

    Well of course he did. That’s what happens when little Georgie hears things about Gaza and hasn’t powdered his little pussy all day.

     

  4. 10 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

    if you're going for treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, I think it does.

    #1 is a statutory crime 

    #2 is redirecting official U.S. policy for your personal gain, very akin to bribery. 

     

    They may both be impeachable, but the latter is definitely impeachable.  

    Public officials can be impeached for any reason, so I’m not sure what you mean by “impeachable.”

  5. 4 minutes ago, Chooky said:

    The call with Mexico revealed that he didn't know Canada was part of NAFTA.  You know, the trade agreement he considered a "disaster" but didn't even know the most basic thing that 7th graders already knew.  And I don't think they're above using that as a defense -- "it would be irresponsible of us as a staff to rattle the country by allowing them to know how really just how stone fucking dumb this guy really is."

    Between that and this

    190401-fox-and-friends-three-mexican-cou

    I legitimately wonder if these people know what Mexico even is.

  6. On 9/23/2019 at 4:17 PM, Ted Lange said:

    80% of Americans support NN.   

    Exactly. This isn’t like the US Senate where the balance of power is decided by one or two people. This is a situation where, as you say, 80% of Americans support NN and the remaining 20% don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground.

    • Like 1
  7. 12 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

    Anyone pushing an ill informed 16 year old as some kind of leader on policymaking. 

    I could count the number of people who do that worldwide on one hand and I would have 5 superfluous fingers

  8. 8 hours ago, Bookman said:

    Today in the UK they said "Nobody is Above the Law."

    Today in the US they said "Nobody is Above the Law."

    Their applications of that principle, historically, has always been curiously selective. So take the US.

    Nixon would have been impeached, had he not resigned, for crimes relating to the burglary of DNC headquarters at Watergate. Nowhere in his articles of impeachment is his participation and endorsement of COINTELPRO mentioned; nowhere are his war crimes in Vietnam, Laos, or Chile mentioned. His crimes in Cambodia were mentioned, but those got voted down; and that’s the problem: it was ok, for the Democrats, when Nixon was committing heinous war crimes against a defenseless country like Cambodia, but it wasn’t ok when he was covering up for the goons that burglarized the DNC headquarters.

    • Like 1
  9. 10 hours ago, GRHorn said:

    This is some good, high level thinking. Are you 16? They could use you. 

    There’s more collective wisdom in that post you quoted than anything you’ve ever said about the topic. 

×
×
  • Create New...