• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

President Donald J. Trump

Started by The General, February 11, 2011, 01:33:34 AM

Quote from: starramus on November 08, 2019, 09:32:35 AM
America

Fuck you with Dr. Dickless' ice-cream wagon for posting the full texts of these articles.  Do you know what links are, and why they are preferred? twit

Dr. MD MD

I love it when the socialists start fighting amongst each other.



Quote from: Dr. MD MD on November 08, 2019, 10:45:46 PM
I love it when the socialists start fighting amongst each other.


It's not really any of my business, Dr. Dickless, but I think that you should invest a few more pennies in making your sign look professional.  As is, it's just a reveal that you don't have any money.


Quote from: Kidnostad3 on November 08, 2019, 03:21:22 PM

I missed this earlier (I know--how could I overlook such a  glaring display of ignorance?) so I'll respond now as follows:


A.  Immigrants naturally gravitate to places where jobs and social benefits are the most available and where others of their kind reside.  When people of a particular ethnic group or nationality arrive in large numbers and become the majority of the population of a city neighborhood, district or suburb it displaces those who lived there previously.  This has happened many times over the past 200 years with the various waves of immigrants that arrived in cities large and small.  It is a well documented phenomena that is as American as apple pie. 

B.  When the demographic of an area changes due to immigration its overall political leanings are likely to change with it.  I could find no data on the of the number of registered Democrats versus registered Republicans residing in the D.C. suburbs over the past 30-50 years but I can recall local news pieces that addressed the changing political dynamic that accompanied the growth of foreign born citizens in Greater Washington D.C. and especially in Arlington County, VA.  This is nothing new and the swing towards the left in the parts of Va I mentioned continues. Clinton carried VA in 2016 and recent Democrat gains in the Commonwealth's  Legislature surprise me not at all. 

C.   In my post I was speaking specifically of the greater Washington D.C. area with which I am very familiar having lived there for over 20 years, but, the same flight of taxpayers from Democrat run urban centers across the nation is ongoing. Take a look at cities like Detroit, Chicago and Cleveland to name a few.  Many owners have simply abandoned their properties due to urban blight, street crime, municipal corruption and high taxes and many of them are themselves of an ethnic minority.   That's right, they just walked away.

D.  As to whether illegal immigrants vote or not, there is ample evidence that historically and in modern times Dems encourage and facilitate voting by non citizens in cities they control.  Most notably, Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall gained and held on to power in NYC for many years doing just that.  This was also the case in cities such Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Kansas City and it continues to this day.  Why do you think Dems want to give non citizens the vote? 

E.  There is no question that people with the means to do so are leaving Democrat controlled states and cities at a rate that is worrisome to the post modern socialists in power (below article refers.)  As to where they're going, the answer is mostly to states with lower taxes, lower cost of living, better weather or just a better quality of life in general.  The populations of states  in the South and  Southwest continue to grow.  What is certain is that many tax paying citizens in states like California and New York are voting with their feet.

https://www.google.com/search?q=https://www.modbee.com/opinion/article226101685.html&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safariI

F.  The below article addresses the real cost of the illegal immigration that is fostered by democrats to increase their power.   Note that I am talking about illegal immigrants and not about legal immigrants who bring something to the table such as those who Qyou mention.  You lumping the two together is an obvious obfuscation.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/surge-14-3-million-illegal-immigrants-in-us-taxpayer-cost-130-billion


Them's the facts, Jack.

Thank you for a thoughtful and detailed reply. 

Let me just respond to one of the points here.  Maybe we can get to the other ones later.  First, though, let me say that I seemed to conflate legal and illegal immigrants in parts of my post.  This was unintentional (as I'm sure it was when you did the same, above).  I do not support illegal immigration in any way.  I think that it is fundamentally unfair to have one group play by the rules and wait for their turn while another group or individuals decides that they are too important to wait and cut in line (apparently the impulse to cut in line is shared with illegal immigrants by some trump supporters).  I don't care what their political inclinations are.

In my personal experience, most of the (legal) immigrants that I have met tend to be more conservative than liberal.  Likewise, they don't come here to get a handout.  They come to the USA for the promise that if they work hard, and play fair, they will be rewarded with prosperity.  They don't particularly want to share the fruits of that labor to support the George Sendas of the world (another trump supporter darling who gets a pass on being a welfare leech because he's a trump supporter).

But let suppose for the sake of the argument that the opposite is true, and they tend to go blue.  Why do you suppose that would be?  And more to the point, why do you guys on the right just bitch about it rather than trying to win them over?

Look, we all teach our kids early on to shun the Dr. Dickless's of the world, who offer them a goodie like a piece of candy, because something bad is going to follow.  If a child can learn that, then don't you suppose that you could likewise teach an immigrant about the dangers of liberal thinking?  That all those attractive looking freebies come at an awful price?  I just don't get why you MAGA guys think that the only way to make America great again is to bitch bitch bitch about liberals.  It seems like the thing that you are best at is giving up on everyone and everything. 

Explain to me why you have given up on immigrants rather than winning them to your side. Let's start with that.  And thanks again for your post.


pate

Quote from: DigitalPigSnuggler on November 09, 2019, 01:51:24 AM
...

Does your 'chair have training wheels and are you required to wear a helmet?




Dr. MD MD

Quote from: DigitalPigSnuggler on November 09, 2019, 01:08:52 AM
It's not really any of my business, Dr. Dickless, but I think that you should invest a few more pennies in making your sign look professional.  As is, it's just a reveal that you don't have any money.



I just still feel sorry for your filipino “stepdaughter.” Clearly, you have to escape to that shithole country to be able to get away with your pedophilia. ::) ::)

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: DigitalPigSnuggler on November 09, 2019, 01:31:14 AM
Thank you for a thoughtful and detailed reply. 

Let me just respond to one of the points here.  Maybe we can get to the other ones later.  First, though, let me say that I seemed to conflate legal and illegal immigrants in parts of my post.  This was unintentional (as I'm sure it was when you did the same, above).  I do not support illegal immigration in any way.  I think that it is fundamentally unfair to have one group play by the rules and wait for their turn while another group or individuals decides that they are too important to wait and cut in line (apparently the impulse to cut in line is shared with illegal immigrants by some trump supporters).  I don't care what their political inclinations are.

In my personal experience, most of the (legal) immigrants that I have met tend to be more conservative than liberal.  Likewise, they don't come here to get a handout.  They come to the USA for the promise that if they work hard, and play fair, they will be rewarded with prosperity.  They don't particularly want to share the fruits of that labor to support the George Sendas of the world (another trump supporter darling who gets a pass on being a welfare leech because he's a trump supporter).

But let suppose for the sake of the argument that the opposite is true, and they tend to go blue.  Why do you suppose that would be?  And more to the point, why do you guys on the right just bitch about it rather than trying to win them over?

Look, we all teach our kids early on to shun the Dr. Dickless's of the world, who offer them a goodie like a piece of candy, because something bad is going to follow.  If a child can learn that, then don't you suppose that you could likewise teach an immigrant about the dangers of liberal thinking?  That all those attractive looking freebies come at an awful price?  I just don't get why you MAGA guys think that the only way to make America great again is to bitch bitch bitch about liberals.  It seems like the thing that you are best at is giving up on everyone and everything. 

Explain to me why you have given up on immigrants rather than winning them to your side. Let's start with that.  And thanks again for your post.

It’s because your ideology is everything that’s wrong with this country. Let the civil war begin, I say! It’ll be just great to see all the sick freaks like you get strung up and have it be livestreamed on Facebook and CNN.

WOTR

Quote from: DigitalPigSnuggler on November 09, 2019, 01:31:14 AM
Thank you for a thoughtful and detailed reply. 

Let me just respond to one of the points here.  Maybe we can get to the other ones later.  First, though, let me say that I seemed to conflate legal and illegal immigrants in parts of my post.  This was unintentional (as I'm sure it was when you did the same, above).  I do not support illegal immigration in any way.  I think that it is fundamentally unfair to have one group play by the rules and wait for their turn while another group or individuals decides that they are too important to wait and cut in line (apparently the impulse to cut in line is shared with illegal immigrants by some trump supporters).  I don't care what their political inclinations are.

In my personal experience, most of the (legal) immigrants that I have met tend to be more conservative than liberal.  Likewise, they don't come here to get a handout.  They come to the USA for the promise that if they work hard, and play fair, they will be rewarded with prosperity.  They don't particularly want to share the fruits of that labor to support the George Sendas of the world (another trump supporter darling who gets a pass on being a welfare leech because he's a trump supporter).

But let suppose for the sake of the argument that the opposite is true, and they tend to go blue.  Why do you suppose that would be?  And more to the point, why do you guys on the right just bitch about it rather than trying to win them over?

Look, we all teach our kids early on to shun the Dr. Dickless's of the world, who offer them a goodie like a piece of candy, because something bad is going to follow.  If a child can learn that, then don't you suppose that you could likewise teach an immigrant about the dangers of liberal thinking?  That all those attractive looking freebies come at an awful price?  I just don't get why you MAGA guys think that the only way to make America great again is to bitch bitch bitch about liberals.  It seems like the thing that you are best at is giving up on everyone and everything. 

Explain to me why you have given up on immigrants rather than winning them to your side. Let's start with that.  And thanks again for your post.

You make a number of good points on legal vs. illegal immigration. My grandparents (on one side) immigrated after the war. I have a number of employees who immigrated far more recently. The one thing that they all say is that they dislike the present immigration system.

Right now, there is no such thing as "illegal immigration" to Canada. We will house you, feed you and give you money while you make your case as to why you are a refugee or why you should be here.

We have a system split right now. We have the immigrants who are traditional (they apply, list their skills, list their assets and prove that they will not be a drain on the system), and we have the "new" immigrant who crosses the boarder illegally (we still don't call them illegal immigrants and instead give them access to all kind of programs while their application goes through the government.)

The points you raise in your post apply only to immigration as it presently is set up in the US. Reading Sanders "manifesto", it would appear that much like Canada, there would be no such thing as "illegal immigration" if he were elected.

The other problem is (as Trudeau recently bragged) "record numbers of refugees and immigrants" you start to change the culture. I support limited immigration and refugees. The idea is that they are coming to Canada because they like the culture and like what we are. When you overwhelm the system, you find that the culture of the host country starts to change and adapt rather than the individual adapt to the culture.

When you have a country that people want to immigrate to with a great culture, you do need to protect it. That does mean not accepting too many people too quickly and giving them time to adapt to the culture they joined rather than change the culture to suit them (there is a reason they left their home country.)

In short- I think that many people (not all) on the right don't have a problem with controlled, limited immigration. The reaction of "no immigration" comes from reading Sandars manifesto and observing the Liberal Trudeau government policies. I believe it is a knee-jerk reaction and that the extreme positions on one side are forcing extreme positions to be adopted on the other.*

*Fell free to use the chicken and the egg argument on this one.

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on November 09, 2019, 06:00:53 AM
Let the civil war begin, I say! It’ll be just great to see all the sick freaks like you get strung up and have it be livestreamed on Facebook and CNN.

Bellgabber of the year!



Dr. MD MD

Quote from: DigitalPigSnuggler on November 09, 2019, 05:50:08 PM
Bellgabber of the year!

And superior to you in every way. For example, I don’t have to travel half way around the world to get laid...or stoop to trawling for jailbait by getting close to people’s daughters. ;)

Quote from: WOTR on November 09, 2019, 01:46:17 PM
When you overwhelm the system, you find that the culture of the host country starts to change and adapt rather than the individual adapt to the culture.

That, I think, is what frightens the red-hatters the most.  If they had ever spent much time around actual immigrants, their concerns would be pacified.  I've spent time with immigrants from many different countries, and there is one thing that all of them -- without exception -- complain about: that their kids have become Americanized and don't value the "old paths."

America is great because of immigrants, not in spite of them.

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: DigitalPigSnuggler on November 09, 2019, 06:32:30 PM
That, I think, is what frightens the red-hatters the most.  If they had ever spent much time around actual immigrants, their concerns would be pacified.  I've spent time with immigrants from many different countries, and there is one thing that all of them -- without exception -- complain about: that their kids have become Americanized and don't value the "old paths."

America is great because of immigrants, not in spite of them.

They’re the best people ever. Way better than people who were born here. Now, get down on your knees and worship them, faggot. ::)

P.S. you seem to know a lot about foreigners children.

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on November 09, 2019, 05:59:52 PM
I don’t have to travel half way around the world to get laid

We're all aware that there are male prostitutes in the USA.  We don't need your reminders.


Dr. MD MD

Quote from: DigitalPigSnuggler on November 09, 2019, 06:35:50 PM
We're all aware that there are male prostitutes in the USA.  We don't need your reminders.

Lots of them in the Philippians too...lots underage.

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on November 09, 2019, 06:37:32 PM
Lots of them in the Philippians too...lots underage.

How do you know?  Never mind, TMI  #sextrafficer #childabuse #MAGAhypocritenosurprise

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: DigitalPigSnuggler on November 09, 2019, 06:42:55 PM
How do you know?  Never mind, TMI  #sextrafficer #childabuse #MAGAhypocritenosurprise

Never been. You however.... ::) ::)


Dr. MD MD

Quote from: DigitalPigSnuggler on November 09, 2019, 06:57:54 PM


Says the guy who defends Jeffery Epstien.  ::)

Libs can’t bantz or scale images, apparently. ::) ::)

DIAF


starramus

Quote from: DigitalPigSnuggler on November 08, 2019, 06:42:53 PM
Fuck you with Dr. Dickless' ice-cream wagon for posting the full texts of these articles.  Do you know what links are, and why they are preferred? twit

I do it to annoy all of you with a short attention span.

[attachment=1,msg1365517]
Here's the requested link.  https://tenor.com/view/terrible-huh-asshole-wrestling-face-gif-4821927

[attachment=2,msg1365517]
Here's the requested link.  https://tenor.com/view/luis-ok-hole-good-job-gif-11967692

Now I'm on both of your levels.

WOTR

Quote from: DigitalPigSnuggler on November 09, 2019, 06:32:30 PM
That, I think, is what frightens the red-hatters the most.  If they had ever spent much time around actual immigrants, their concerns would be pacified.  I've spent time with immigrants from many different countries, and there is one thing that all of them -- without exception -- complain about: that their kids have become Americanized and don't value the "old paths."

America is great because of immigrants, not in spite of them.

But it is true. I'm not a "red hatter." I would say around 25% of my workforce are immigrants. I do spend time with them.

Just recently I was told by one of them from India (here around 2 years) that he is scared of our immigration policies. He has worked in England, Germany and Switzerland (and probably others that I forgot about.) He is here now, and saying that throwing open the doors to the world with absolutely no checks and balances is insane.

It is not just "people who are born here" or "red hatters." It is anybody who sees the value in our culture saying that immigration is good- but overwhelming a system and a culture is not.

Quote from: WOTR on November 09, 2019, 11:49:01 PM
It is anybody who sees the value in our culture saying that immigration is good- but overwhelming a system and a culture is not.

Is anyone arguing otherwise?  If so, you are not talking about a policy implementation; you are arguing about the parameters.

Nothing wrong with that at all.  It's very healthy for a society.  I really don't see a problem here.  Canada, you say?  Can you download this to Agent Orange care of the White House?


starramus

November 8, 2019
Left is the New Right, or Why Marx Matters
by Rob Urie
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Email

Photograph Source: Soman â€" CC BY-SA 2.5

The American obsession with electoral politics is odd in that ‘the people’ have so little say in electoral outcomes and that the outcomes only dance around the edges of most people’s lives. It isn’t so much that the actions of elected leaders are inconsequential as that other factorsâ€" economic, historical, structural and institutional, do more to determine ‘politics.’ To use an agrarian metaphor, it’s as if the miller was put forward as determining the harvest.

The American left has had an outsider role in this politics from the inception of the nation as a capitalist oligarchy to the improbable cobbling together of the idea that popular democracy can exist alongside concentrated wealth. If the powers that be wanted popular democracy, they could stop impeding its creation. The ‘first mover’ advantage, that once gained, power is used to close the door behind it, has be understood for centuries in the realms of commerce and politics.

As was probably the intent, the 2016 presidential outcome was used by the more persistent powers to divide the American left. The neoliberal left moved to a reflexive nationalism tied through class interests to state-corporatism in defense of the realm. Carnival barker Trump, an American political archetype for at least two centuries, was portrayed as a traitor to capitalist democracyâ€" from the left. Emptied of analytical content, left affiliation was made a ‘brand.’

In more constructive terms, Bernie Sanders reached into red state territory to facilitate a class-based left political response to the failures of capitalism by promoting social welfare programs with historical precedent in the New Deal. Tied to an analytically sophisticated effort to shift power down and across political and economic hierarchies, something akin to popular democracy is in the process of confronting its long-mythologized ghost.

Graph: It is hardly incidental that as wealth has been concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, its power to affect political outcomes has been codified through official determinations like Citizens United. While the domination of politics by concentrated wealth may seem new, it ties to the conception of the U.S. as a capitalist oligarchy where rich, white, slavers determined political outcomes. The Senate, the U.S. ‘House of Lords,’ wasn’t popularly elected until the twentieth century. Source: inequality.org.

Part of the challenge of addressing this politics comes through dubious parsing of ‘the political’ from its objects. If an agent of the government tells people when to wake, what to wear, what they can and can’t say and what to spend their time doing, that is authoritarian. When an employer determines these, it is considered ‘free choice.’ In the neoliberal frame, economics is only political to the extent that elected leaders promote specific economic policies.

Even with the realization of late that money determines political outcomes, the distribution of income and wealth is considered economics while the use that these are put to in the political arena is considered politics. The unvirtuous circle of capitalism, where concentrated income and wealth are used to affect political outcomes so as to increase concentrated income and wealth, ties economics to politics through the incompatibility of capitalism with democracy.

Modern electoral politics replaces this relationship of economics to politics with color-coded brandingâ€" red or blue, where ‘our guy’ is what is good and true about America. The other party exists to pin ‘our guy’ into a corner that prevents him / her from acting on this goodness. Barack Obama was prevented from enacting his ‘true’ progressive agenda by Republican obstructionists. Donald Trump is being persecuted by deep-state, snowflake, socialists.

Left unaddressed and largely unconsidered has been the persistence of class relations. The rich continue to get richer, the rest of us, not so much. For all of the claims of political dysfunction, when it comes to bailouts and tax cuts, wars and weaponry and policing and surveillance, these opposition parties can be counted on to come together to overcome their differences. Likewise, when it comes to the public interest, partisan differences are put forward to explain why nothing is possible.

Graph: as illustrated above, in recent decades the greatest gains in the relative wealth of the rich came during the terms of liberal Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Lest this seemâ€" or be framed as, incidental, the liberal Democrat’s support for the mechanism of this enrichment, Wall Street, explains the relationship. In economic terms, Democrats have been the party of the radical rightâ€" financialized, neoliberal capitalism, since the inception of neoliberalism in the 1970s. Source: inequality.org.

The unitary direction of this government response in favor of the rich may seem accidental, a byproduct of ‘our system’ of governance. In fact, the defining political ideology of the last half-century has been neoliberalism, defined here as imperialist, state-corporatism, controlled by oligarchs. And contrary to assertions that neoliberalism is a figment of the imagination of the left, its basic tenets were codified in the late 1980s under the term ‘Washington Consensus.’

What the Washington Consensus lays out is the support role that government plays for capitalism. Its tenets are short and highly readable. They provide a blueprint that ties Democratic to Republican political programs since the 1980s. They also tie neoliberalism to the Marxist / Leninist conception of the capitalist state as existing to promote the interests of connected capitalists. Left out, no doubt by accident (not), was / is a theory of class struggle.

When Donald Trump passed tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the rich and corporations, this was the Washington Consensus. When Barack Obama put ‘market mechanisms’ into Obamacare and promoted the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), this was the Washington Consensus. When Bill Clinton tried to privatize Social Security, this was the Washington Consensus. The alleged ‘opposition parties’ have been working together from a single blueprint for governance for four decades.

The intended beneficiary of this unified effort is ‘capitalism,’ conceived as multinational corporations operating with state support to promote a narrowly conceived national interest. An ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) clause was included in NAFTA when Bill Clinton promoted and signed it. An even more intrusive ISDS clause was included in the TPP when Barack Obama promoted it. The intent of these ISDS clauses is to give the prerogative of governance (sovereign power) to corporations.

It is no secret in Washington and outside of it that multinational corporations pay few, if any, taxes. The logic of this is two sided. On the one side, the neoliberal / Washington Consensus premise is that corporations can put the money to better use than government. The other is that the role of government is to support capitalism, not to constrain it. Barack Obama’s consequence-free bailouts of Wall Street, often at the expense of ordinary citizens, possessed an internal logic when considered through this frame.

An historical analog can be found in the relationship of the East India Company to the British empire. The East India Company drew financial, tactical and military support from the British monarchy as its global reach made it a key institution of imperial expansion. Its economic ties gave it a depth and breadth of reach that military occupation alone couldn’t achieve. Centuries later, Mr. Obama made this point when he argued that the TPP was crucial to ‘countering China.’

The rise of neoliberalism in the 1970s was intended to address the alleged failures of the New Deal. By the late 1980s, this new-old ideology had been codified as the Washington Consensus. Its proponents amongst national Democrats morphed into the New Democrats / DLC just as the Soviet Union was coming unwound. The twin ‘failures’ of the New Deal and communism led to the revival of dogmatic capitalism that saw the state as an appendage of capitalist institutions. Bill Clinton was more likely than not sincere when he declared that ‘the era of big government is over.’

The conflation of Democrats with ‘the left’ that first emerged to counter the New Deal in the 1930s, persisted through the 1990s and the 2000s because it was useful to both political parties. Republicans were the party of business while Democrats claimed to be the party of the people. While the New Deal was in place and from a liberal perspective, the Democrats did support a limited conception of the public interest domestically. However, by the time that Bill Clinton entered office, the public interest had been redefined to mean corporate interests.

This tension can be seen more clearly in the fight over NAFTA, which Republicans had been unable to pass before Mr. Clinton entered office. Mr. Clinton was able to use his liberal bona fidesâ€" and the fact that he wasn’t a Republican, to bring over just enough Democrats in congress to get NAFTA passed. He went on to divide bourgeois Democrats from the broader Democratic constituency through the use of race and class dog whistles. In this sense, he presaged Donald Trump. The net effect was to successfully divide the Democrat’s constituency by class.

Before Bill Clinton, the anti-NAFTA fight had a clear class component. Organized labor had lined up against the free-trade agenda that was being promoted by Reaganite Republicans. Through his rhetoric of ‘fair’ capitalism and a ‘level playing field,’ Mr. Clinton gave a liberal patina to an utterly retrograde, pre-Great Depression, form of capitalism. With no apparent irony, the Washington Consensus applied a Marxist / Leninist conception of the capitalist state without any pretense of it mitigating capitalist excess.

The clutter of party politics creates differences where there are none, or where they are different than as posed. Prior to being elected president, Barack Obama used the frame of the Washington Consensus to give an ideologically coherent explanation of why he wanted to cut Social Security and Medicare. It is one with the Republican explanation. It ties to his inclusion of neoliberal ‘market mechanisms’ in Obamacare. And it ties to his pivot to cut public expendituresâ€"a.k.a. ‘austerity,’ by early 2010. And it ties to his support for the TPP.

As with Bill Clinton before him, Mr. Obama had a clear ideological predisposition that was at odds with how liberals and his supporters perceived and / or explained them. The historically based conflation of Democrats with ‘the left’ was a misrepresentation of the ideological drivers of the New Democrat’s policies. In significant ways, Messrs. Clinton and Obama were ideologically to the right of their Republican colleagues. And they governed like this was the case.

The invisibility of this shared ideology to most Democrats and liberals came through general ignorance of the genesis and tenets of the Washington Consensus, its relationship to neoliberalism, and the closed nature of Washington political culture. In a Gramscian sense, it reflects the belief system of ruling oligarchs, an ideology based on the interests of the rich submitted from above. The historical precedent was the use of American foreign policy to promote the business interests of connected industrialists and the corporations they controlled.

Why any of this matters is that capitalism has been tried and its consequences are becoming increasingly untenable. Environmental ills appear intractable, capitalist political economy is being held together with increasingly desperate measures, and its human toll can be measured in foreign genocides and domestic deaths of despair. Given the nature of neoliberal recessions, the U.S. is but one recession away from wholesale economic and political rebellion. And that recession is on the way. The value of left analysis is that it opens the range of political possibilities.






Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod