NSFW THE TRUMPOCALYPSE

[Calliegirl]

Those Calls to Trump? White House Admits They Didn’t Happen

A scary thought ... Maybe Mr. Dump truly believes that those things actually happened.
He might be hearing voices that tell him what to do (and I am not referring to Bannon with that)

I've seen his supporters claim the calls happened, even after the WH agreed they didn't. They said the media is lying to make him look bad and we need to stop believing everything we see on the news.

 

[Spang]

I know that, and I consider myself a radical for sure. I mean, other people would even if I didn't. But that doesn't mean that voting for a Democrat is not going to be the right political move when the opposition is like that.

With a Democrat in the White House, you still get capitalism, endless wars, drone warfare, mass deportations, the prison-industrial complex, poverty, cops killing and brutalizing citizens without consequence, etc.

However, with a friendlier face, you get a relaxed liberal base that think everything is fine.

 

[Andy_T]

i.e. I'd love to destroy the government but that's not going to happen, so unless it does I'll be here voting Democrat and doing what I can to try and push the US as far left as possible without getting myself arrested.

My gut feeling is that if the US government gets destroyed, likely we will not be very happy with the people who take power then...

 

[Amy SF]

Email:

Amy -- Wow! Amy McGrath's campaign for Congress (KY-06) is off to an AMAZING start! Amy broke new ground as a female fighter pilot, and now her campaign has taken off at mach speed (see the news clips below).

But she'll need your help to get the job done. Chip in whatever you can to send Amy McGrath to Congress >>

(And don't forget to share the heck out of this email too!)

-- John Hlinko, LeftAction

On August 1st, newly retired Lt. Colonel Amy McGrath launched her new mission to take on a Congress full of career politicians.

Her announcement video, which featured her amazing life story as a 20 year Marine fighter pilot veteran (and the letter Mitch McConnell ignored), caught fire across the nation.

It's been featured in nearly every major news outlet - The Hill, Morning Joe, NPR, CNN.

In Just 72 Hours

Her announcement video has more than 1.1 million viewson YouTube.


Her Twitter grew from 76 followers to over 16,500 followers.


Her campaign Facebook page now has 11,500 likes.


AND, as of 9am ET today, the campaign has received, through online support, a total of 5,731 contributionstotaling $355,176, with an average contribution of $62!


But we can't stop there. We need to show the nation that Amy McGrath is once again blazing a trail, and proving the Democrats can and should compete in every district across the country.

She's an ideal candidate for proudly defending Democratic values, and reaching out to those who've felt left behind.

Help her build this momentum by lending your support!

Click here to support Amy McGrath for Congress! >>

Paid for by Amy McGrath for Congress.

Stay up to date with Left Action by following us on Facebook and Twitter !

 

[FortyTwo]

With a Democrat in the White House, you still get capitalism, endless wars, drone warfare, mass deportations, the prison-industrial complex, poverty, cops killing and brutalizing citizens without consequence, etc.

However, with a friendlier face, you get a relaxed liberal base that think everything is fine.

So you would rather have someone openly and unabashedly hostile at the wheel? Isn't it better to have someone who can at least be pushed around, while simultaneously making sure the liberal base is educated on how to do the pushing around? You're going to have to do the latter part either way. Doesn't the former part make it easier?

In a nutshell: are you glad that Trump won instead of Clinton? Because this is about the most openly hostile the government can get, and we still aren't seeing the kind of resistance needed to actually change things the way they need to be changed.

 

[Spang]

So you would rather have someone openly and unabashedly hostile at the wheel? Isn't it better to have someone who can at least be pushed around, while simultaneously making sure the liberal base is educated on how to do the pushing around? You're going to have to do the latter part either way. Doesn't the former part make it easier?

In a nutshell: are you glad that Trump won instead of Clinton? Because this is about the most openly hostile the government can get, and we still aren't seeing the kind of resistance needed to actually change things the way they need to be changed.

We're currently pushing Trump around now; he can't get very much accomplished. The Affordable Care Act has still not been repealed. That's not because of McCain, or any other politician, but the disability-rights activists who literally put their bodies on the line to save Medicaid and Obamacare. He wants to kick trans servicemen and -women out of the military, but his tweets aren't policy and military leaders won't do it. He wants to build a wall, but we'll prevent that from happening just as we prevented the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Most people are aware that Bill Clinton signed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" into law, but far fewer people are aware of what actually happened to the LGBT servicemen and -women who got kicked out as a result of that awful legislation. Many of these brave men and women received a general discharge, mentally unfit for service. It meant no veteran benefits at all. No scholarships, no grants, no GI Bill, no VA loans, no VA services. Nothing. It became a stain on their permanent record.

I'm not glad that Trump won, but I wouldn't be glad if Clinton won, either. The president is not a solution to our problems, but a cause.

 

[Amy SF]

We're currently pushing Trump around now; he can't get very much accomplished. The Affordable Care Act has still not been repealed. That's not because of McCain, or any other politician, but the disability-rights activists who literally put their bodies on the line to save Medicaid and Obamacare. He wants to kick trans servicemen and -women out of the military, but his tweets aren't policy and military leaders won't do it. He wants to build a wall, but we'll prevent that from happening just as we prevented the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Most people are aware that Bill Clinton signed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" into law, but far fewer people are aware of what actually happened to the LGBT servicemen and -women who got kicked out as a result of that awful legislation. Many of these brave men and women received a general discharge, mentally unfit for service. It meant no veteran benefits at all. No scholarships, no grants, no GI Bill, no VA loans, no VA services. Nothing. It became a stain on their permanent record.

I'm not glad that Trump won, but I wouldn't be glad if Clinton won, either. The president is not a solution to our problems, but a cause.

I don't agree with your all-or-nothing approach to the presidency. Even the best presidents aren't perfect (Jefferson owned slaves, Kennedy got us into war in Vietnam, LBJ got us DEEPER into Vietnam), and sometimes the crappiest presidents do something good. (Nixon created the EPA, after all.) Not all presidents are able to do what they promised to help average citizens, either here or abroad. And presidents don't operate in a vacuum; they have to work with Congress, and it's Congress that's often the cause of our problems, not the president.

 

[FortyTwo]

We're currently pushing Trump around now; he can't get very much accomplished. The Affordable Care Act has still not been repealed. That's not because of McCain, or any other politician, but the disability-rights activists who literally put their bodies on the line to save Medicaid and Obamacare.

Oh, for sure. Don't think I'm condemning activism. It's worth noting though that those activists would not have had to put their bodies on the line in a Clinton presidency; not to prevent regression, at least. Activism could have been directed toward trying to make things better instead of needing to be used desperately trying to keep things from getting worse.

He wants to kick trans servicemen and -women out of the military, but his tweets aren't policy and military leaders won't do it.

You're free to disagree of course but I'm not convinced that this is anything other than the GOP eating itself alive. The Democrats are conniving pricks but they can at least get legislation through and have something resembling a cohesive agenda. The GOP has control of every facet of the government and still can't get anything done because of the sheer incompetency of everyone at the top and how powerfully petty they are.

He wants to build a wall, but we'll prevent that from happening just as we prevented the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

The wall was never realistic and I think at this point even Trump knows it's not going to happen. As for the pipeline I'm not convinced that's stopped at all, just put on pause.

Most people are aware that Bill Clinton signed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" into law, but far fewer people are aware of what actually happened to the LGBT servicemen and -women who got kicked out as a result of that awful legislation. Many of these brave men and women received a general discharge, mentally unfit for service. It meant no veteran benefits at all. No scholarships, no grants, no GI Bill, no VA loans, no VA services. Nothing. It became a stain on their permanent record.

DADT was and continues to be a disaster and I blame Bill Clinton for it 100%.

I'm not glad that Trump won, but I wouldn't be glad if Clinton won, either. The president is not a solution to our problems, but a cause.

I understand that, I really do. But the point I'm trying to make is that any problem the Trump presidency is causing would be a thousandfold less of a problem if Clinton had won. Bare minimum, it just would be. You don't have to like Clinton or the government in general to acknowledge that. There is no scenario where "Trump being faced with resistance" results in more progress than "Clinton being faced with resistance."

Someone was going to be President. It was going to be Clinton or it was going to be Trump. Neither is a good choice, nor is any politician from any major party. Both are going to cause problems and delay and fight against the type of progress we both want. Clinton would without a doubt provide a platform for marginal progress despite being firmly and violently right-wing in a way that neither of us obviously approve of - simply because her image as a 'progressive' and her party's goals require her to keep things the same while maybe giving the left a few things it superficially wants. Trump is openly regressive, Clinton is a gray area.

I can't see any possibility of a 2017 where more progress was made with Trump than with Clinton. Therefore voting for Clinton (or any other Democrat) is, was, and should have been considered positive political action rather than succumbing to moderate liberalism.

 

[FortyTwo]

I don't agree with your all-or-nothing approach to the presidency. Even the best presidents aren't perfect (Jefferson owned slaves, Kennedy got us into war in Vietnam, LBJ got us DEEPER into Vietnam), and sometimes the crappiest presidents do something good. (Nixon created the EPA, after all.) Not all presidents are able to do what they promised to help average citizens, either here or abroad. And presidents don't operate in a vacuum; they have to work with Congress, and it's Congress that's often the cause of our problems, not the president.

I mean - and Spang would probably agree with me here - I don't think a single person who has been the president has actually been truly good or had the peoples' broadest interests in mind, to be honest. The US was built off the backs of slaves on land stolen from the people who were here before, so it is in itself an affront to freedom and peace.

 

[FortyTwo]

I think my argument about Clinton versus Trump (and in a broader sense, moderate Democrats versus Republicans) can be summed up with the following:

Moderate Democrats want to keep oppressive systems in place to make sure they and the other members of the elite stay on top. Republicans want to expand oppressive systems to give themselves more and more power. Neither is a good option, but one is clearly easier to fight. Attention should be put toward making the fight easier and then doing what has to be done to make sure the fight is won.

 

[Spang]

I understand that, I really do. But the point I'm trying to make is that any problem the Trump presidency is causing would be a thousandfold less of a problem if Clinton had won. Bare minimum, it just would be. You don't have to like Clinton or the government in general to acknowledge that. There is no scenario where "Trump being faced with resistance" results in more progress than "Clinton being faced with resistance."

I don't disagree that Trump is a far worse president than Clinton could ever dream of being. I also don't disagree that there would likely be a sliver of progress during a Clinton presidency. But I think when we talk about this what-if sliver of progress, we need to include all the regression that would either be continued, escalated or created under a Clinton presidency.

 

[Andy_T]

@Spang , again, you seem to argue that we need a revolutionary overthrow of the current US government. That is more or less the same that Steve Bannon is also advocating for.

What I want to point out, is that, if such a thing really happened, I am very afraid that Bannon's followers who try to make up the new order will likely outnumber yours by some orders of magnitude....

 

[Spang]

@Spang , again, you seem to argue that we need a revolutionary overthrow of the current US government.

Abolishing capitalism and overthrowing the government is not the same thing.

 

[FortyTwo]

The difference being that Steve Bannon wants to hurt innocent people and the kind of thing that Spang (and myself tbh) is arguing for is to save innocent people and improve their quality of life.

Also, Spang is not exactly the one and only golden boy of leftist action. I think the vast majority of America is moderate, but neo-nazis and their ilk face pretty sizeable challenges from leftists whenever they do anything, especially at this point in history.

 

[FortyTwo]

I don't disagree that Trump is a far worse president than Clinton could ever dream of being. I also don't disagree that there would likely be a sliver of progress during a Clinton presidency. But I think when we talk about this what-if sliver of progress, we need to include all the regression that would either be continued, escalated or created under a Clinton presidency.

That is fair. The single thing I've been trying to say is that when there's a choice between two candidates where one will clearly be more harmful than the other, trying to do damage control should not be ignored or looked down upon for not being radical enough, because it is a factor that can massively affect the kind of situation activists find themselves in.

 

[Spang]

It's interesting that a post that is completely inaccurate gets two 'Winner' reactions.

 

[FortyTwo]

It's interesting that a post that is completely inaccurate gets two 'Winner' reactions.

I think even for really cool and well-intentioned people sometimes the idea of the government being not just flawed but fundamentally wrong is repulsive and frightening; the idea that some people believe the system is too broken to really be fixed is startling. It's the same reason a lot of liberals reject radical leftism - it makes them feel like their efforts to improve the system as it is might actually have been for nothing (I have absolutely been guilty of this). The whole "ideology horseshoe" thing comes from this place as well (i.e. the idea that radical leftism and radical conservatism are equivalent because they are both radical).

I remember a few years ago (before all this **** put me through the wringer) my moderate liberal *** was horrified at the negative reaction leftists had to Obama's policies. Like, sure, the guy wasn't perfect, but he was the good guy, right? My whole ideology revolved around the idea that the Republicans were the bad guys and Obama was a flawed but fully benevolent leader with an agenda that was the antithesis of everything the Republicans believed. So if the Republicans were bashing Obama, and the leftists were too, didn't that make the leftists just as bad, misguided, etc. as the Republicans?

Accepting that the situation was way more nuanced than that and that idolizing political figures, or even just presuming benevolence, is dangerous was a terrible process and it made me feel like ****. So I don't really blame people for avoiding it, though I wish they wouldn't.

 

[Andy_T]

Abolishing capitalism and overthrowing the government is not the same thing.

OK, it seems I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

But let's be honest - how do you think you will "abolish capitalism" if you (the US) is not even able to move a bit in the direction of "Social Democrat" countries?

I'm not even talking about countries like Sweden, but even Germany's conservative government seems to be more "socialist" to me than the US Democrats are (and likely will be in the foreseeable future) . If a progressive candidate like Bernie Sanders is in danger of getting nominated, everybody starts screaming that a self-avowed "Socialist" would never be elected, and so on.

So allow me to be sceptical about the chances of abolishing capitalism at any time in a timeframe that I am likely to experience.

 

[Spang]

OK, it seems I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

But let's be honest - how do you think you will "abolish capitalism" if you (the US) is not even able to move a bit in the direction of "Social Democrat" countries?

I'm not even talking about countries like Sweden, but even Germany's conservative government seems to be more "socialist" to me than the US Democrats are (and likely will be in the foreseeable future) . If a progressive candidate like Bernie Sanders is in danger of getting nominated, everybody starts screaming that a self-avowed "Socialist" would never be elected, and so on.

So allow me to be sceptical about the chances of abolishing capitalism at any time in a timeframe that I am likely to experience.

No one said it was going to be easy. I don't have all the answers, but it will require radical ideas. Liberals and centrists will be the biggest hurdle. The wealthy used to be afraid of the poor. They aren't anymore. We need to change that. There are more of us than there are of them. Collectively, we have the power.

 

[MadamSarcastra]

Rahm Emanuel defends new lawsuit over sanctuary cities - CNNPolitics