Yeah, I know, I know. It’s Chomsky, so the RW loons will dismiss it as the worst of the left of the left. Plus, it’s on al Jazeera, so it’s a “muzzie” interview. And those same RW bastards won’t take responsibility for the fact that I will fight them to the end of my days because they hate me/fear me for everything I believe, everything about me. They will live on in some fantasy world where I want to hurt them. Republican voters, and especially Trump supporters, want someone to swing their big dick and stand down any opposition to PROTECT their frightened little selves.
I’m convinced the RW smells victory, and has become insane because of their fear that they’ll actually be in charge and fuck everything up like Bush did.
Having acknowledged the lunacy of the average Trump support/GOP voter, I found this interesting:
Renowned US academic Noam Chomsky says Bernie Sanders has the best policies of the Democratic presidential contenders, but does not have a real chance to win in a political system where elections are “mainly bought”. In the second part of an interview with Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera’s UpFront current affairs show, the MIT emeritus professor said he considered Sanders to be “basically a new dealer”. “I agree with him in a lot of things, not in other things,” Chomsky said. “I frankly think that in our system of mainly bought elections, he doesn’t have much of a chance.
“But if he were elected I think he would – of the current candidates – I think he’d be the one who would have, from my point of view, the best policies.”
Still, the majority of analysts still believe Clinton to be the likely presidential nominee to emerge from the Democratic primaries. If that was to happen, Chomsky told UpFront that he would absolutely vote for Clinton over any Republican, if he lived in a swing state.
“Oh absolutely… My vote would be against the Republican candidate,” said Chomsky, who lives in Massachusetts, a safe state for the Democrats.
Chomsky said there were clear differences between the two parties. “There are enormous differences,” he said. “Every Republican candidate is either a climate change denier or a sceptic who says we can’t do it. “What they are saying is, ‘Let’s destroy the world.’ Is that worth voting against? Yeah.“
I gleefully await the “Chomsky is an idiot” posts from “the right”.
Something tells me I’ll be waiting a while. They’ll be coming from the putative “left” because there’s nothing like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
DES MOINES, Iowa (The Borowitz Report)—An endorsement from former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is expected to widen Donald J. Trump’s already impressive lead among so-called “idiot voters,” an aide to the billionaire said on Tuesday.
While Trump was previously thought to have a lock on the idiot vote heading into the Iowa caucuses, a recent surge by Senator Ted Cruz, of Texas, has put the idiots back in play.
But even as the Trump campaign staffers celebrate the Palin endorsement, they recognize that they still have their work cut out for them to secure victory in Iowa. “Getting the idiots to support Trump is only half the battle,” the aide said. “Now we have to make sure that they make it to the caucuses without getting lost on the way.”
If Trump wins the GOP nomination, which is entirely possible given the idiocy of the GOP electorate (for whom I have ZERO respect), this could be the most interesting election ever.
A completely unqualified buffoon (Trump) vs. a Wall Street Masseuse (Clinton) or a Democratic Socialist with the guts to stand up for US (Sanders).
To understand how dangerously extreme the Republican Party has become on climate change, compare its stance to that of ExxonMobil.
No one would confuse the oil and gas giant with the Sierra Club. But if you visit Exxon’s website, you will find that the company believes climate change is real, that governments should take action to combat it and that the most sensible action would be a revenue-neutral tax on carbon — in other words, a tax on oil, gas and coal, with the proceeds returned to taxpayers for them to spend as they choose.
I don’t want “Obama-light”. I want “change I can believe in”.
But I’m voting for Hillary if her opponent is _______________ (any candidate from the Republican clown car).
It just makes me feel so icky…
IOW, it sickens me to know that my choice will be Hillary, or some far-right leaning loon who will bring about global economic destruction.
“NEOLIBERALISM (TM)” has no home if not in the Republican party.
Why don’t we have a choice, any more? Is it the media? The RW noise machine? The stupid, reality-hating evangelicals? Wall Street? Citizens United and/or rampant money in politics? Bad court decisions?
It’s gotten so bad I can’t nail it down, any more. All of the above?
I guess I can advocate for Bernie until the cows come home, but I can’t make America any smarter, or make voters care more about what a train-nwreck, for example, Ted Cruz or Rand Paul would be.
I’m hoping for massive voter turnout in the general election because Republicans only win when “no one” shows up. Because they REALLY suck that bad.
As the Republican clown car of presidential candidates continues to merrily roll along, there has been an interesting development over the past couple weeks. Ted Cruz is suddenly rising in the polls, inching above Ben Carson and closer to puzzlingly perpetual leader Donald Trump. It’s been so noticeable that some are even warning that the country should prepare for President Cruz.
In other words, the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets—centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns—would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology.
The authors go on to speculate that this ultimately reflects an evolutionary imperative. “One possibility,” they write, “is that a strong negativity bias was extremely useful in the Pleistocene,” when it would have been super-helpful in preventing you from getting killed.
All of this matters, of course, because we still operate in politics and in media as if minds can be changed by the best honed arguments, the most compelling facts. And yet if our political opponents are simply perceiving the world differently, that idea starts to crumble. Out of the rubble just might arise a better way of acting in politics that leads to less dysfunction and less gridlock…thanks to science.
IOW, conservatives operate out of fear and a herd mentality. No surprise, I know, but now it’s backed up by solid science that conservatives are deer, looking out for predators, while liberals are free spirits looking for new experiences. Kinda like tigers, but less likely to start killing other people.