# President Obama Warns Democrats Of The Dangers Of Socialism, Liberals Turn On And Attack Him



## cots (Nov 17, 2019)

Former President Barack Obama on Friday warned the Democratic field of White House hopefuls not to veer too far to the left, a move he said would alienate many who would otherwise be open to voting for the party’s nominee next year. Obama didn't go as far to chose one of the current Democratic Presidential Nominees he's endorsing, but he simply implied that policies like forced single payer universal health care, open borders and the entire "free handouts for all" socialist garbage is going too far and that the average American won't vote for a Liberal Democrat that thinks that these things are actually free. He warned that unless the Democrats stopped the with socialist nonsense that they will probably not beat Trump in 2020.

Comments on Left Learning Main Stream Media sites that actually allow you to comment on their stories seem to mostly agree with Obama that the Liberals are fucking stupid. Though, there are plenty of comments from Liberals attacking Obama in favor of pushing socialism on society and are being replied to with things like "Obama won 2 elections, so I think he might know a little bit more about getting elected than you do. As usual, people who think they know everything won't take advantage of the wisdom of others....". Like I always say Liberals are rabid animals that not only kill their own offspring, but will turn on you and stab you in the back the first chance they get. You're only useful to them and they only agree with you if you're saying and doing what they want you to say and do. Basically, they rather hear their own words coming from your mouth then have any interest in what you actually have to say.

Hey, at least Obama is telling it like it is. I mean, when he got elected I didn't vote for him and all, but I accepted that he was the new President of the USA and figured he deserved a chance. I didn't plan to remove him from office before he was even sworn in. Oh, and of course the Liberal comments are full of people still denying that Trump is their President. Liberals fail to realize that Obama is right and that they are a minority and aren't going to win the 2020 election if they keep up with their shit.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50445743

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wir...93?cid=clicksource_4380645_null_headlines_hed

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6104933503001/ - This is the actual video. So if you're dumb and don't visit the site because you're bias you'd simply be ignoring a video of Obama saying what he said. See how not visiting sites your masters tell you do prevents you from getting the entire story (or maybe you would rather have someone tell you what they think of the video based on what they overheard two other people saying how they felt about it when they watched it).


----------



## SG854 (Nov 17, 2019)

Who decided to resurrect cots?


----------



## cots (Nov 17, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Who decided to resurrect cots?



I did, see the backstory here. Though, I'm only partially back from the dead. My guides, apps, tools, etc ... didn't survive. Though, let's not make this forum thread about me. Feel free to leave comments about my return on the blog I posted.


----------



## AmandaRose (Nov 17, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Who decided to resurrect cots?


Probably the fault of them bloody liberals


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 17, 2019)

cots said:


> Hey, at least Obama is telling it like he is. I mean, when he got elected I didn't vote for him and all, but I accepted that he was the new President of the USA and figured he deserved a chance. I didn't plan to remove him from office before he was even sworn in. Oh, and of course the Liberal comments are full of people still denying that Trump is their President. Liberals fail to realize that Obama is right and that they are a minority and aren't going to win the 2020 election if they keep up with their shit.




Same here. And I never thought Obama was a socialist, or Muslim, etc. My biggest gripe with him, especially since he's even a few years older than me and grew up in the same America of the 70's/80's/90's that I did, is that he seemed just a little tooooo comfortable with the concept that America was over as a successful and persuasive force. That our best days were behind us and it was time to accept it, i.e. "those jobs just aren't coming back." The last few years have shown us that isn't necessarily so, and a defeatist, "better get used to being poorer" attitude should be treated as the enemy at all costs.

Trump's Policy "Magic Wand" Boosts Manufacturing Jobs 399% In First 26 Months Over Obama's Last 26
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2019/03/11/trumps-policy-magic-wand-boosts-manufacturing-jobs-399-in-first-26-months-over-obamas-last-26/

One thing's for sure though - Obama has a better objective eye than anyone in the Democrat party right now. Of course it helps he's not a candidate in the running, but he's always had that ability to see outside the party blinders. He can see how the extreme ideas being pushed by this year's candidates as if the whole country were ready to embrace them (wealth tax, medicare for all, abolish 2nd Amendment, abolish 1st Amendment, you're any gender you say, communism) just aren't ready for prime-time America.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 17, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Probably the fault of them bloody liberals


They said Trumps name three times in a mirror and cots appeared.


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 17, 2019)

I'd be curious to hear an unbiased perspective. From what you're saying, and just focusing on the bit obama said, it sounds like he's warning that logical straight-forward policies which are proven to work can seem extreme to certain demographics, and if those certain demographics are crucial to win the presidency, you have to accommodate their ignorance. Which, yeah, is "business as usual". Obama is pretty dead center, maybe slightly to the right on many issues, so this isn't really much of a surprise to anyone who pays attention to such things.


----------



## Glyptofane (Nov 17, 2019)

This is the second such statement he has made recently cautioning the direction and electability of the Democratic party.

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/31/7749...crats-dont-always-need-to-be-politically-woke

He faced some backlash over that one too. Pretty crazy times when I find myself agreeing with Obama, at least from a strategic standpoint of his party.


----------



## cots (Nov 17, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Same here. And I never thought Obama was a socialist, or Muslim, etc. My biggest gripe with him, especially since he's even a few years older than me and grew up in the same America of the 70's/80's/90's that I did, is that he seemed just a little tooooo comfortable with the concept that America was over as a successful and persuasive force. That our best days were behind us and it was time to accept it, i.e. "those jobs just aren't coming back." The last few years have shown us that isn't necessarily so, and a defeatist, "better get used to being poorer" attitude should be treated as the enemy at all costs.
> 
> Trump's Policy "Magic Wand" Boosts Manufacturing Jobs 399% In First 26 Months Over Obama's Last 26
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2019/03/11/trumps-policy-magic-wand-boosts-manufacturing-jobs-399-in-first-26-months-over-obamas-last-26/
> ...



Yeah, the entire real far-right non-sense I never bought into (there's a difference between what the main stream media says is "far right" and the actual "far right"). Although, the real far-right wackos at least didn't try to abuse and change the way the government works to try to oust Obama from office. Sure, there were plenty of idiots who blamed everything negative that happened on Obama and the racist fucks who didn't like him because of his skin color, but that's exactly what the Liberals are doing to Trump. The thing about the Liberals though is that they're trying to tear down the current Government while Obama was simply trying to play within the rules. Obama came into office with a shit economy and some of his policies helped and some didn't. I wish Liberals would see that everything that Trump does isn't bad for the country and that what they are doing is. In this case they really need to listen to Obama (which, if you remember, they held on a pedestal), but I do understand the Liberal mindset so it doesn't surprise me they've turned on their once great leader.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 17, 2019)

Obama should know better, he didn't beat out Hillary in the primary and McCain/Romney in the general by running a centrist campaign.  And Trump sure as shit didn't beat out Hillary by running as a centrist either.  Nobody on either side of the aisle wants to vote for a focus-tested, monotone bureaucratic robot.  The left is not a monolith, never has been, and it is possible to acknowledge that Obama was a pretty good president while also recognizing that his two terms were fairly disappointing from a progressive's point of view.

In this case he's just dead wrong.  Choosing a candidate out of fear that they have to appeal primarily to the mainstream is exactly what we already did in 2016.  People want an inspiring candidate with a history of strong morals and convictions.  Not somebody who's willing to bend over backward in private to appease big pharma or big oil.


----------



## cots (Nov 17, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> I'd be curious to hear an unbiased perspective. From what you're saying, and just focusing on the bit obama said, it sounds like he's warning that logical straight-forward policies which are proven to work can seem extreme to certain demographics, and if those certain demographics are crucial to win the presidency, you have to accommodate their ignorance. Which, yeah, is "business as usual". Obama is pretty dead center, maybe slightly to the right on many issues, so this isn't really much of a surprise to anyone who pays attention to such things.



You're viewpoint is basically what you asked for - less bias. I openly admit I hate Liberals so anything I write about them will be bias. And it isn't simply me misusing the word hate (like Liberals misuse the word gas-lighting). It's not like I'm saying "I hate grape jelly" like some dense cell phone addicted prep who's mother pays for her clothes. I actually fucking hate liberals. So thank you for your less bias interpretation. Although, most policies based on socialism usually fail or cause a lot a harm to the countries they're implemented in. Obama is definitely not a fan of open borders or illegal aliens. I'm not sure where he stands on issues like what gender you want to identify as, but issues like that don't have much impact the country (just PC non-issues). Though, removing the 1st and 2nd amendments or destroying the Constitution completely will never happen while I'm still alive and since Obama worked within the realm of the law I doubt he's in favor of ripping up the foundation for the country he served. Plus you have to realize that most of the USA doesn't want socialism. They want common sense laws that work. I'm all open for trying new things, but I think it's pretty stupid to keep trying to implement something that has been proven over and over again to not work.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Nov 17, 2019)

cots said:


> forced single payer universal health care


Medi-Cal works great for people here in CA. Also that marijuana $$$ helps with anything that needs more then the standard federal government funding.


----------



## cots (Nov 17, 2019)

Ericthegreat said:


> Medi-Cal works great for people here in CA. Also that marijuana $$$ helps with anything that needs more then the standard funding.



I'm not familiar with Medi-Cal. Is that Cali's implementation of Medicaid? if so why are you bringing up an insurance plan meant for disabled people? Or wait, is this for people who are refusing to work (or the free shit they give to illegals)? Marijuana comes with it's set of problems. It's not a benign substance. It's a highly addictive drug with the potential for abuse. At least where I live (I voted to legalize it) they put warning labels on it. Though, you really shouldn't be smoking it. In most cases it's just as detrimental to your life as any other addiction (and since it has a high potential for abuse, like nicotine and alcohol, you'll see lots of people becoming addicted). Once you start, then build up a tolerance it also becomes expensive. Let's just hope you don't run out of money and then do desperate things to obtain more or turn to cheaper $5 hits of meth because you need to get stoned and can't afford the $50 8th of weed. Or let's hope you don't get too stoned and make poor decisions (weed makes you "stoned" - the chances you'll make poor decisions when impaired is fact - hence you can get fined for driving stoned). Or let's hope you're not stoned all of the time and think since weed isn't impacting you too negatively that it's okay to go ahead and legalize mushrooms or Ecstasy (hm, I wonder who did this). Clearly, weed is not a gateway drug (/s). Though, you're an adult. It's not like you're a Liberal who complains when a Private Catholic School starts drug testing it's students, because you hate God and don't mind kids using drugs (wait, are you?). Of course, there are medical benefits, if you take it orally in controlled doses with oversight from real doctors (not the fake ones you pay $200 to for a note that says you can smoke pot that will hand them to you for any reason you come up with). However, we all see how socialism has worked out for Cali. We've all seen what reducing drug penalties has also done. Hey, but enjoy your smoke. I'm not going to try to stop you from harming yourself. Knock yourself out.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Nov 17, 2019)

cots said:


> I'm not familiar with Medi-Cal. Is that Cali's implementation of Medicaid? if so why are you bringing up an insurance plan meant for disabled people? Or wait, is this for people who are refusing to work (or the free shit they give to illegals)?


All of the above, I dunno why you don't consider medical care a basic human necessity.... I agree about marijuana, but I'm pretty sure it's not addictive, and not that harmful to people over 25 unless abused (like alchohol).


----------



## cots (Nov 17, 2019)

Ericthegreat said:


> All of the above, I dunno why you don't consider medical care a basic human necessity.... I agree about marijuana, but I'm pretty sure it's not addictive, and not that harmful to people over 25 unless abused (like alchohol).



Because health care isn't a human right nor is necessary for society to function. It costs money and frankly there's a lot of instances when people should be denied it (like when drug addicts overdose - this should be ignored). If you decide to take a substance that you've been told could kill you and then overdose why should everyone else have to spend tens of thousands of dollars for your bad choice? Or if you want to kill your baby and expect others to be complicit in killing it. I guess if everyone supports making health care a human right I'd have to go along with any new rights added, but until that happens I'm not going to treat it as a human right nor will vote to make it one. Stating it's a human right when it's not on the list doesn't make it one.

Marijuana has a high potential for abuse because it's addicting. Research on what THC does to the dopamine receptors in the brain and how your body builds up a tolerance. There's a lot of information published that clearly explains why it's addicting and if you think it's all Government propaganda from the 60's then you should probably read the dates of the studies published and notice a lot of them come from Canada (who has legalized it recently and then produced the studies). Luckily, even though there's the mild psychological dependence due to the dopamine situation it's not psychically addicting in the sense that if you don't have it you'll die (like heroin) or in most cases it won't cause major cardiac issues leading to stroke or heart attack (like cocaine). However, it will increase your BPM and in some people that have pre-existing heart conditions could cause complications. High blood pressure and rapid heart beat are common side effects of ingesting THC. I voted to legalize it because it has medical value and I used to smoke it (and I currently use CBD - thanks to Trump for legalizing hemp). There's far worse drugs that people should worry about. Just hopefully you don't get addicted or make any bad decisions while stoned. I mean there's a lot of people that manage to be functional and smoke weed for recreational purposes, but then there's also a lot of people that can't handle drugs. I understand addiction because I've experienced it and know what I'm talking about because I have decades of experience with marijuana.

Anyway, you've not addressed what Obama said. What do you think about his message to the more Liberal members of society?


----------



## Ericthegreat (Nov 17, 2019)

cots said:


> Because health care isn't a human right nor is necessary for society to function. It costs money and frankly there's a lot of instances when people should be denied it (like when drug addicts overdose - this should be ignored). If you decide to take a substance that you've been told could kill you and then overdose why should everyone else have to spend tens of thousands of dollars for your bad choice?


This is kinda a fucked up way of thinking man, get them help and stable, in the end health care care abuse doesn't even cost that much in the overall budget....


----------



## cots (Nov 17, 2019)

Ericthegreat said:


> This is kinda a fucked up way of thinking man, get them help and stable, in the end health care care abuse doesn't even cost that much in the overall budget....



Some people don't want help nor wish to "find stability" and no matter what you try to do you can't change this. The funny thing about the entire addiction disease is it's the only disease you chose to have and the only disease you can cure at any time by simply choosing to do so. I have no sympathy for someone who chooses to harm themselves and then expects everyone else to pay for their mistakes (especially if they do it more than once - like heroin addicts that OD on a weekly basis). If you're a drug dealer that gets into a shoot out with a rival gang I would support leaving you in the street to die. It would set an example for the rest and then burning your body would be very cost effective as opposed to operating on you to fix your wounds then pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep you in jail. I actually value my cats life more than someone that sells meth to fifth graders. There's just situations where I think that society would benefit from not having certain people living. Like in the EU where some countries have assisted suicide and allow people to kill themselves simply because they're having a hard time dealing with life (and thus causing other people lots of problems). I would fully support allowing Liberals to perform late term abortions on themselves if their safe places aren't working out for them. I'm the type of person that would tell a random stranger that walks up and tells me they are going to kill themselves to "go right ahead". Sadly, that is now illegal. So I would just ignore them and walk away.

Though, I'm done debating about the negative side effects of marijuana or the negative effects on society that socialism causes. I went in dept on the marijuana because there's a lot of propaganda being put out by drug dealers who's only intention is to get you addicted to it for personal profit. So I wanted to clear up some general confusion the public has about the drug. I really don't need to get into the negative effects of socialism. The system has failed so many times and countries that implement policies and the results have been clearly documented throughout modern history. I've found more documentation on the negative effects of socialism then there are records of the climate and weather recorded in modern history (not the guesstimated stuff, but actual accurately recorded data). It's just too bad that the teachers pushing this on kids don't include the negative effects in their teachings otherwise I'd assume even with dealing with young kids that they'd be able to clearly see the system is doomed to fail.

What am I willing to further discuss with you, which you have been avoiding, is how you feel or think about what Obama had to say to the Liberals. Did you vote for him? Do you still support him? Do you agree with his assessment? Is it worth trying to gamble with the election by trying to push socialism on the American public if the alternative would remove Trump from office? If you can't answer any of those questions then I rather not continue discussing the other topics with you.


----------



## notimp (Nov 18, 2019)

Read it earlier today, and I have to say - that this has a surrealist touch to it.

"This is the change you can believe in."

#nochange


To me (without reading previous postings in this thread first (Ill do it after writing this)), this is what a political establishment ("tha liberal elite" as it would be coined by the right) is all about.

The feeling of change - without actual change. 

Now there are many layers to this - like 'powerstructures', 'economic systems', fear of not being able to be 'moderate enough' to beat the republicans next election.

But still - when you have Mr. CHANGE, openly speak out against any real structural change (which is the narrative line of the billionaire sponsors of the party, as we came to know a few months back), because 'YOU dont want change, really #jedimindtrick'.

And he does so in a capacity to actually influence electoral behavior.

And then you have Mr Buttigieg who is "naive face to be moved by anyone whos interested" now  championed as the new exciting center candidate..

I have to admit, my first reaction was 'how surreal' as well. 

(Disclaimer: I'm not an american.)


----------



## cots (Nov 18, 2019)

notimp said:


> Read it earlier today, and I have to say - that this has a surrealist touch to it.
> 
> "This is the change you can believe in."
> 
> ...



Mr Buttigieg (if that's how you spell it) is pretty charismatic and he's good looking. Though, I don't agree with his Liberal policies and he's not going to get the vote from colored minorities because most of them are anti-LGBTQ (especially the black voters). I'd love to go out on a date with him for one night, but he's not the sort of person I'd want to get to know (or run the country). I also don't think Obama's stance on suggesting not to implement extreme socialistic measures in the USA is anti-change. It's just common sense. Obama still supports of lot of changes that moderate Democrats would make.


----------



## notimp (Nov 18, 2019)

I currently can only judge him by public appearances not policy - and he seemed like a candidate who very much enjoys media training (being perceived as media savvy, 'liked' in a bland sense of the term), which to me feels (and this is really subjective), like a candidate that can be excited by appearances - means maybe 'moved', 'modeled').

Understand that this is an unfair assessment, I havent looked into his pedigree, or his politics yet. To me its just more like 'Biden isnt polling well anymore, Berny and Warren are too left leaning or so the democratic party likes to indicate - so now -- hail that guy.  Well the circus will go on for quite a while still... (Biden will start a comeback attempt I'm sure..  )
--

edit:

Bill Maher explaining the political logic behind it (but only part of it...  ):


On the 'prisoners allowed to vote' argument (in the video), there is some sound logic behind this as well (Maher hints at it). Because previously convicted people in the US loose their right to vote (in other countries around the world they dont), and because of a generations lasting 'war on drugs' that was pushed through with profiling and prejudices intact - this means, that large portions of the black community are still barred from voting. So this is another 'lets game the voting system' issue. (In some regions - if you want to keep power as a conservative - you push law and order politics.) This then also is related to a self perception of 'we cant change things' which leads to lower voter turnout in those demographics - its a whole thing. So thats where that argument started. The 'serial killer' has nothing to do with it - is just used to push the argument to the extreme to then denounce it. Rhetorics. (So someone asked Sanders a loaded question, he replied emotionally charged. Now hes painted as wanting serial killers have a right to vote. Basically.)


----------



## cots (Nov 29, 2019)

More fallout from rich Democrats. Instead of Obama this time it's the founder of BET or Black Entertainment Television. He's taken what Obama said a step further and isn't even supporting any of the 2020 candidates. If you haven't heard of BET it's an American cable network channel that caters to African Americans and has had some really good family based shows on in the past. I used to watch it back when it started regardless that a lot of people were racist back then. I haven't watched cable TV in decades so I'm not sure what's on now. I'm not sure what his personal reasons are, but there's only a handful of black billionaires in the USA and possibly he doesn't like the idea that the Liberals would want to take 90% of his income away from him? Don't quote me on that - it's just a theory (not the Liberals wanting to take most of his income, that's a fact). 

I wonder how @Xzi stating "After three years in office, the only people left in support of Trump are racists, fascists, and those that have no issue associating themselves with those two groups. " would apply to this issue.



> Robert Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, said in an interview Friday that he does not believe that there's a Democrat in the 2020 field today who can prevent President Trump from winning a second term. Johnson, a lifelong Democrat who has in the past praised Trump, told CNBC that his opinion was based on facts and he did not want to make it political.





> In July, Johnson – the country’s first African-American billionaire – warned that the Democrats have become too liberal and said at the time that he isn’t supporting a particular 2020 candidate.



https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bet-founder-says-2020-election-is-trumps-to-lose


----------



## Lucifer666 (Nov 29, 2019)

Translation: "hurr durr snowflake liberals"
Translation for the next 1,000 threads cots makes: "hurr durr snowflake liberals"


----------



## cots (Nov 29, 2019)

notimp said:


> On the 'prisoners allowed to vote' argument (in the video), there is some sound logic behind this as well (Maher hints at it). Because previously convicted people in the US loose their right to vote (in other countries around the world they dont), and because of a generations lasting 'war on drugs' that was pushed through with profiling and prejudices intact - this means, that large portions of the black community are still barred from voting. So this is another 'lets game the voting system' issue. (In some regions - if you want to keep power as a conservative - you push law and order politics.) This then also is related to a self perception of 'we cant change things' which leads to lower voter turnout in those demographics - its a whole thing. So thats where that argument started. The 'serial killer' has nothing to do with it - is just used to push the argument to the extreme to then denounce it. Rhetorics. (So someone asked Sanders a loaded question, he replied emotionally charged. Now hes painted as wanting serial killers have a right to vote. Basically.)



Hey, sorry you replied and I missed it. I think that felons who serve their time should regain their rights. Not only their right to vote, but their right to work, get public assistance or credit. Right now if you get out of Prison there's few options for you, even less if you don't have family. They'll put you up in a motel for a few weeks (if you're lucky) and possibly get you hooked up with a low paying job. Then you're on your own. Sometimes they just kick them out of Prison (like the mentally ill) and drop them off in a city and say "good luck". Like with no food, money and just the clothes on your back. I've seen mentally ill people walking around in gowns with no shoes because they weren't given any clothes and just dropped off of the street corner. I mean, sure, they did the crime, but then they served their time. I think it's pretty fucked up how we treat people that we're supposed to be rehabilitating and integrating back into society. It's like we set them up to fail.


----------



## Spring_Spring (Nov 29, 2019)

Why are liberals inherently evil?
They have ruled this country for many decades. I guess I must be very opressed without knowing...


----------



## cots (Nov 29, 2019)

Lucifer666 said:


> Translation: "hurr durr snowflake liberals"
> Translation for the next 1,000 threads cots makes: "hurr durr snowflake liberals"



Pretty much. If it's not about video games it'll be about Liberals. Kinda like before I showed up 99% of this polical forum was "trumpy dumty orange man bad let's hate white men and conservatives"

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Flofflewoffle said:


> Why are liberals inherently evil?
> They have ruled this country for many decades. I guess I must be very opressed without knowing...



Your brand of Liberal is something American Liberals could aspire to. There's a big difference. See this post for an overview of an "American Liberal". If you need proof go read replies to news articles regarding anything Trump or related to Christian's on ABC News or Fox News.


----------



## Spring_Spring (Nov 29, 2019)

ah yes, the definition of "liberal" is very different in the us. It's not even the same x3


----------



## cots (Nov 30, 2019)

I think the Conservative claims that they're going to have a majority of the African American and Hispanic vote come 2020 is turning out to be pretty accurate.
*
Clarence Thomas reportedly compares 'the modern-day liberal' to Klansmen in new doc*

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas reportedly recalled threats posed by the Ku Klux Klan when discussing how liberals impeded his career.
His comments came during a new documentary -- "Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words" --  in which he reflects on the difficulties he faced during his confirmation battle in 1991.

"I felt as though in my life I had been looking at the wrong people as the people who would be problematic toward me. We were told that, 'Oh, it's gonna be the bigot in the pickup truck; it's gonna be the Klansmen; it's gonna be the rural sheriff,'" Thomas says in a new documentary, according to ABC News.

"But it turned out that through all of that, ultimately the biggest impediment was the modern-day liberal," he added. "They were the ones who would discount all those things because they have one issue or because they have the power to caricature you."

The film is set to be released in early 2020, nearly 30 years after he assumed his spot on the nation's highest court.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/clarence-thomas-modern-liberal-klansmen


----------



## notimp (Dec 3, 2019)

Next lesson, those are really just, lets say four, quite literally indistinct groupings of people based on their feels for risk aversement.

In our lifetime - there has been no political idea, that significantly changed anything. (Thats what makes the Obama statement so iffy.) - and even if, they usually get tested out in small projects, or smaller countries, and then analyzed - and then shut down, or partly implemented.

None of it has to do with a public speech level of convincing others for them. Or at least - very little.

Now - "but this is american liberalism' and something else is a different brand of liberalism - also, pretty much nonsense.

US currently is further right than almost any western country - flirting with the far end of the spectrum even. Thats it.

*Shake fists against those god darn liberals* is very, very similar to cursing at mirages. Meaning - regardless of what subgroup you mean to direct your anger against, splitting society in two groups (racism), or four groups (liberals, democrats, republicans, conservatives), some public speaker came up with a few centuries ago - serves pretty much no purpose.

People 'fall' in those groups based on self identification, around surface issues, that mattered - for a bit, based on their life experience, and what was hip, when they were 16-24. And then it changes over time.

There is no one out there trying to 'cure people' from liberalism successfully. Not that I know of. And when people do that with proponents on the far right - its mostly to reduce radicalization, that mostly follows cultish gameplans. (Build echochamber, remove peoples social contacts to the outside world. Teach - ingroup is bliss, you are better, hate the outgroup.)
--

Only political changes we will see in our lifetimes:
- Reduction of opportunities is good, because climate. (In societies on a degrowth path.)
- Corporations pivoting from shareholder value to "Ben and Jerries" business model. (People buying into feels, because of felt deficit of those values in their lives).
(The World economic forum in Davos is currently ongoing - catch up on it..   edit: Or at least its co-founder presented pivoting away from shareholder value to more CSR as a necessary outlook/perspective two days ago. Unsure.)

Both are highly cynical. Both may also provide needed progress. Both wont change powerstructures.

So whats the fuzz all about, really?


I think I wrote it once before.

Ancient Rome had people in lower classes pitched against each other based on the four colors of chariot (horse racing) teams. Din't mean jack. Everyone was very involved.

Much more interesting to lock at the proposals for any actual change, once they get enacted, or shortly before. Or even those that never get anywhere.

But trying to mobilize against an entire political fraction (party - in any part of the world that isnt the US), on the basis of 'it must go - they are always wrong, and evil' - kind of...

... well how do you say it...

The arguments always revolve around actually trying to win arguments. But hey - any chimp, who learned rhetorics can do that. Thats conversational technique from 400-2000 years ago. With cots, we are never exploring issues. We are only hearing stories about the devious 20% of society, that will never change their ways.

It really serves no purpose. No one gets more intelligent or knowledgable. Everything is presented with the same pathos, and the same intensity. And the enemy is to be blamed, and responsible for all them bad things.

I think I broke through that barrier at around age nine. When I thought to myself - wait a minute - people want to believe in monsters, so they don't have to face the duality of men (good and evil are part of everyone of us).

Talking about those very basic narratives. Do you think the Brothers Grimm, wanted to warn people around them, by collecting those dark and scary fairytales from yesteryear and writing them up? What do you think the purpose of those stories was in the first place..  Because you take 'big bad wolf' often very literally.

The day cots can be made to reflect on his own drive, must and will be a good day..


----------

