Friday, December 2, 2016

European Elections to Watch

After Trump’s victory:
(1) the rerun of Austria’s presidential election vote on 4 December, 2016;

(2) Italy’s 4 December, 2016 referendum on the power of the Italian parliament’s upper house;

(3) the Netherlands’ March 2017 general elections;

(4) the April-May presidential elections in France 2017;

(5) the September 2017 parliamentary elections in Germany.
In Austria, the re-run presidential election – set to be held on the 4 December – has seen Norbert Hofer of the Freedom Party appear to promise a referendum on EU membership, if Turkey enters the EU or the EU becomes “too centralised,” but whether he will win is unclear.

Meanwhile in Italy, on the same day, Italians will vote on whether to change the Italian constitution, and if they vote “no” this could be the trigger for a new Eurozone crisis, perhaps causing new Italian elections in 2017.

Although the Dutch elections will not be held until March 2017, Geert Wilders’ anti-Islam Party for Freedom is the most popular party in the latest polls, and Wilders might be the next Dutch Prime Minister.

Europe is about to experience some interesting times, to put it mildly.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

74 comments:

  1. I read the sky will fall if Italy votes No. Fortunately that will have little effect, since it already fell after Brexit. There can only be a few shards left to drop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brexit hasn't happened yet. It's too early to judge the short-term effects. I suspect the effects won't be good under the Conservative government, though nowhere near as catastrophic as predicted by Remainers and economists, though that's a price that we should be willing to pay to eventually end the dominance of global capital.

      Delete
  2. I will vote for Nicola Dupon Aignan in France, but in the 2nd round I probably vote for Marine Le Pen. Now her symbolis the blue rose, and a lot of journalist present her as a left-wing candidate at level economic(and the candidate of the right, François Fillon is more conservative, and more liberal at economic level(he describes himself as a french Thatcher))...

    But it's the Dutch election which is the most important, because with Wilder, a country(and a fonder state of UE) will leave UE and euro! The victory of Le Pen isn't probable.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "and if they vote “yes” this could be the trigger for a new Eurozone crisis"

    No, if yhey vote "no" this couuld be trigger for a euurozone crisis.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In french there is an exelent analysis of the referendum: http://www.latribune.fr/economie/union-europeenne/italie-quels-scenarios-pour-l-apres-referendum-616768.html

    He explains, if the "no" win, there will be new election, and the Five Star Movement will win those election. But the Five Star movement will don't win the senate, and the senate is necessary for a referendum about Italexit...

    If the "yes" win, it will be easier to proposed a referedum about italexit. And the Five Star Movement, which can win election in 2018, will proposed a referendum!

    So this refendum isn't the most important, and it's most the reaction after it(for example the reaction of the financial sector) which are important!

    ReplyDelete
  5. In other news the Private Sector reacts cooly to Trump's Brave New Muslim Registry:

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/12/02/twitter-only-tech-firm-nine-say-no-helping-build-muslim-registry

    "But-but-but his Anti-Globalism is good for buisness" ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jobbers Kevin, keep up. There will be no such registry. There never was a plan for one, there is no plan for one. Trumps office even announced this long ago.
      Maybe we should talk about Jill Steins plans to imprison smokers. That's a nonexistent plan too.

      Delete
    2. You shouldn't make it so easy to refute your vacuous claims:

      http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/11/16/top-trump-adviser-pushing-muslim-registry-fast-tracked-border-wall

      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/24/donald-trumps-comments-database-american-muslims

      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/27/donald-trump-muslim-registry-policy-possibility

      http://www.npr.org/2016/11/24/503279102/trumps-proposed-muslim-registry-echoes-bush-era-program

      Delete
    3. (1) Trump isn't even in office yet. I'll wait a year or so to see how his policies play out, thanks buddy. If he breaks up the international free trade consensus and gives America a decent immigration policy, he will have done some good.

      (2) Question for Kevin: did you vote for Jill Stein in a state where Trump won??

      Please tell us you did. Because whenever you complain about Trump, we can all remind you that you helped put him in office there, chuuuuuuump.

      Delete
    4. Sorry to disappoint you, but no I voted in one of the bluest states on the map. Not that it would matter, because the whole "A vote for X = a vote for y" canard has been answered and refuted many, many times. But I'll spare you the embarrassment.

      Delete
    5. PS: You'd be better off at one-upping me by reminding me that I would have had far more to complain about HRC. That would be the actual truth.

      Delete
    6. This is why I said keep up Kevin

      http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/759868?section=Newsfront&keywords=nbc-slants-reponse-reince-priebus-muslim-registry&year=2016&month=11&date=20&id=759868&aliaspath=%2FManage%2FArticles%2FTemplate-Main&oref=www.bing.com

      What part of no do you not understand?

      Delete
    7. Topkek~! Ken, Ken, Ken... I won't ask you if you bothered to read any of the links I posted, because you obviously did not. Now try again, and please note that the Priebus tweet is not the focus of any of them. In fact, he's only brought up on one of them.

      Do your homework & get back to me, k? I shouldn't have to point these things out to you.

      Delete
    8. Without touching on previous statements and contradictions, a Muslim registry as a means to counter terrorism would be very ineffective and wasteful use of limited resources on strictly security grounds. Distinctions matter quite a bit in the war on terror, and one that registers all Muslims would have the US squandering resources on the vast majority of Muslims in America who are not a threat. While 15 years of blunders since 9/11 proves that no strategy is too stupid, ineffective, and counterproductive for the US to consider, I'd like to think the registry was just Donald pandering to the naive intuitions many Americans have about how to combat terrorism. Given the names he's suggesting in homeland security, SoD and SoS, though, I can understand Kevin's reservations about what's to come, while still generally agreeing with Ken and LK that Trump won't end up adopting this method.

      Delete
    9. "While 15 years of blunders since 9/11 proves that no strategy is too stupid, ineffective, and counterproductive for the US to consider"

      Correct. As well as adopt.

      Delete
  6. "if they vote “yes” this could be the trigger for a new Eurozone crisis"

    "No" not yes surely.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Austria just voted, and the Green Party smacked down the Far Right! What was this about having to placate Alt-Righters because of nervousness over immigration? #NotMyProgressive

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just because Austrians didn't want Hofer for president doesn't prove that the majority of people are not sick of mass immigration. On the contrary, a lot of good polls coming out of Europe suggest the majority of people want to immigration at least moderated or severely reduced.

      http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/186209/europeans-negative-toward-immigration.aspx

      Delete
    2. LK, do you even know anyone who's Muslim?

      I asked this because one of the things I've observed about the Greens is that they actually do befriend people of Islamic faith. A little hard to "other" someone when their humanity is staring you in the face.

      The reason I bring all of this up is that I think you underestimate Green Party politics by a wide margin. If a Green is winning elections, it's a sign the NeoCon Beat The Drums For War Propaganda Machine is running out of steam and a new direction in Europe is afoot.

      Delete
    3. Who said anything about Muslims? West Europeans are as fed up with East European mass immigration as they are with Third world mass immigration, for good reasons.

      Meanwhile, deranged cultural leftists, liberals and Greens like you want to cause a total catastrophe in the West by open borders. If and when the far right ever gets into power in the West, it will be by the disaster caused by open borders, and we will have lunatics like you to thank for it.

      Delete
    4. As for the neocons, Trump has rejected them. Even if some few former fellow travellers of the neocons get into his administration, the evidence suggests they won't be pushing neocon foreign policy, but pursuing a more old school realist foreign policy.

      Delete
    5. Meanwhile, deranged cultural leftists, liberals and Greens like you want to cause a total catastrophe in the West by open borders

      I've been over this Open Borders thing with you several times. The Greens at least here stateside do not have open borders in their platform. And not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm not even a registered Green.

      As for the neocons, Trump has rejected them

      Uh huh. His main choices for Sec of State would seem to belie that:

      http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/trump-and-the-neoconservatives

      http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/11/17/Return-Neocons-Trump-s-Surprising-Cabinet-Candidates

      http://www.newsbud.com/2016/11/16/donald-trump-cabinet-establishment-insiders-neocons

      https://youtu.be/zwsDNyfBxUc

      Delete
    6. It's very unlikely Bolton is going to be secretary of state, and also unlikely he could get a confirmation. The rest of your links show no hardcore neocons having actually been appointed. Try again.

      Delete
    7. "The rest of your links show no hardcore neocons"

      Romney? Rudy G? Gen Betray-us? Bob Corker?

      If he picks Tulsi, I'll come on here an apologize.

      Delete
    8. Romney and Rudy G are not hardcore neocons, but were fellow travellors, and none of these people have even been selected for anything as yet.

      Keep proving my point, Kevin.

      Delete
    9. Romney and Rudy G are not hardcore neocons

      http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Joe-Biden-Laughing-Shaking-his-Head.gif

      Rudy G:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/nyregion/rudolph-giuliani-transition-secretary-of-state.html

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/12/neocon-podhoretz-giuliani_n_60087.html

      http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/giuliani_rudy

      http://prospect.org/article/rudy-giuliani-uber-neocon

      http://www.taylormarsh.com/2016/11/neocon-john-bolton-rudy-giuliani-scary-state-choices

      Romney:

      https://www.thenation.com/article/mitt-romneys-neocon-war-cabinet

      http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/romney-echoes-neocons-trump-will-lead-u-s-into-the-abyss

      https://mic.com/articles/11219/mitt-romney-foreign-policy-team-17-of-24-advisors-are-bush-neocons#.2ZkOLGBdJ

      Why do you make me embarrass you like that, LK? Quit whilst you are behind.

      Delete
    10. Yes, Romney and Ruby may have staffed themselves with neocons, because of the influence of neocons in the party, but they were not hardcore neocons themselves. You are too stupid to understand the difference.

      Delete
    11. Romney and Ruby may have staffed themselves with neocons

      And you just proved to me that who someone staffs themselves with will carry the day. Which is what happened to Bush.

      I think you are grasping at straws trying to downplay Romney & Rudy, fyi. I don't think you can prove that either. In fact, your Bush video would seem to show otherwise.

      Delete
    12. Rudy will not be part of the administration.
      Yet another Kevin bogosity bites the dust.

      Romney is no neocon. Get a grip.

      Delete
    13. Rudy will not be part of the administration.
      Yet another Kevin bogosity bites the dust


      Dream on Ken. As long as he was under consideration, my mentioning it is anything but bogus until a decision is made.

      Romney is no neocon

      So? A Mormon "people pleaser" & arse kisser is every bit as good as one, depending on the arses that need kissed. Supposedly the younger Bush wasn't either, remember?

      Any more childish games of one-upmanship you'd like to play?

      Because I'd hate for you to step in it any further and embarrass yourself:

      http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/28/mad-dog-on-the-loose-the-blood-soaked-career-of-general-james-mattis

      Delete
  8. Kevin, your dishonesty is endless. Trump blather all the time. He tosses out an idea. But now we have the policy answer. Your links are about old stuff, before we got the (frankly obvious all along) *policy itself. No such registry. That is why I said keep up. Next you'll quote Bush I read my lips to insist he didn't raise taxes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LMAO Keep telling yourself that. Check the articles again [?], they are not all about "old" stuff. I'd bring out quotes to shoot you down like fish in a barrel, but LK doesn't like spam & reprinting quotes all over the place. But to touch on the high points: I'll take statements from the General himself that this is most certainly on the table over some Lieutenant. And one of Mr. Trump's admin picks has done the same thing before.

      Not me who's being dishonest, you just don't want to deal with all the facts that are laid out on the table.

      Until Trump himself gives a resounding "no," you don't have an argument. I remind you that people were replaced all the time who tended to get in the way of Bush Jr.'s evil shenanigans. Now do us adults who prefer grab the bull by the horns when it comes to thorny issues all a favor & go back to sleep, Ken.

      Delete
    2. Oh, and in regards to "frankly obvious all along..?" Not when Trump has talked repeatedly about stalking Mosques for "security" reasons. Come on Ken, keep up.

      Delete
    3. Kevin Wayne@December 5, 2016 at 11:34 AM

      So are we to conclude, then, Kevin, that you are so stupid that you think there should be no FBI or intelligence scrutiny of the US community in question when that community has a horrendous problem with extremism?

      Do tell.

      Delete
    4. See my other post about befriending & "othering."

      Delete
    5. Notice his prevarication LK. He talks about a religious registry, which was never going to happen, and when I refute that he talks about surveillance of some mosques.

      Trump won't go as far with surveillance as the socialist president of France either. No one had the vapors over what happened in France, only over what hasn't happened in America.

      Delete
    6. But to give you a more direct answer: Since Fundamentalist Christians have a long record of:

      *Slavery

      *Slaughtering indigenous (not just US)

      *Segregation

      *Jim Crow

      *Wacked-out extremist anti-gun safety

      *Putting Reagan & both Bushes in office

      *Bombing Abortion Clinics

      *Continued support of surveillance, torture, drones, mass slaughter of Palestini Arabs, and over 130 wars the US is involved in at the present time

      etc, etc, etc...

      Perhaps Christians should be under "FBI or intelligence scrutiny of the US community in question" based on the actions of a few.

      Delete
    7. Kevin Wayne@December 5, 2016 at 12:13 PM

      See my other post about befriending & "othering."

      So, what, you think there should be no FBI scrutiny or surveillance of any kind?

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. Ken B@December 5, 2016 at 12:21 PM

      France has gone further than that, Ken. See here:

      http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/france-100-mosques-close-151202142023319.html

      Of course, if Trump was forced to do this, I bet Kevin would think it means he is *Literally Hitler* (trademark).

      Delete
    10. "Perhaps Christians should be under "FBI or intelligence scrutiny of the US community in question" based on the actions of a few."

      American far right Christian extremists undoubtedly are under FBI surveillance, you f*cking idiot, Kevin.

      Delete
    11. "Far right...?" FAR RIGHT? This is about Joe and Jane Average Pew Plopper. Whoever it is you have in mind when you say "far right Christian extremists" - those are not who put both Bushes in office.

      Delete
    12. Of course, if Trump was forced to do this, I bet Kevin would think it means he is *Literally Hitler*

      I generally steer clear of that kind of shrill rhetoric. But if someone becomes more intrusive and autocratic, well... they will deserve the analogy. Simple as that.

      Delete
    13. Ken, you refuted absolutely nothing. Bone up on some nuts and bolts argumentation and logic sometime. And look up the word "refute."

      Delete
    14. Kevin Wayne@December 5, 2016 at 12:39 PM

      "Far right...?" FAR RIGHT? This is about Joe and Jane Average Pew Plopper.

      Average Christian conservatives or even fundamentalists are not engaged in violent extremism in anywhere near the extent and intensity of the other religious minority we're talking about here.

      You're a laughable regressive left liar, Kevin.

      Delete
    15. Oh, and you can bet Kevin will never have 1 word to say about this extremism here:

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death-2/?utm_term=.dd8071947acc

      Delete
    16. not engaged in violent extremism in anywhere near the extent and intensity of the other religious minority we're talking about here

      If [and only if] you discount the notion of violence by proxy. If I voted for Obama - just to use a non-GOP example - because I like the Drone program and am fine with him killing innocent 16 year old American Citizens, how is that different than if I pulled the trigger myself?

      By the Standard Bearer Himself (Jesus) - Whatever you do in your heart's intentions, you've done in the physical world.

      Even ignoring Christians, the US has been involved in enough proxy wars, covert operations and destabilization efforts worldwide since WWII to make them in no place to point any fingers.

      Delete
    17. "Kevin will never have 1 word to say about this extremism"

      1) I support "States" rights on issues like this. That includes Nation States. Even so, what are we supposed to do, go into these places and bomb the shit out of 'em? Yeah, like that's worked so well before.

      2) I appreciate Jill Stein going down to Orlando to talk to people in the neighborhood of the Pulse club in order to calm fears over both Gay-Bashing and Muslim-Bashing. That's the correct approach for an aspiring POTUS. UN-like the guy who's moving into the Oval Office at present.

      Delete
    18. Ken - Check into Necessary & Sufficient Condition tests via Inductive Logic. A statement about a Trump employee is a necessary condition for assuming what Trump will or won't do. But only a clear statement by Trump himself fits both the criteria of Necessary and Sufficient.

      Delete
    19. "Even so, what are we supposed to do, go into these places and bomb the shit out of 'em? Yeah, like that's worked so well before."

      Not at all. We want to see if you have even one word of moral condemnation of the cultures and nations that put gays to death for being gay.

      But then you've already told us in the past you're 100% OK with flooding America with 100 million people with an extreme homophobic culture:

      [question posed to Kevin]: "If we brought 100 million people with extreme religious fundamentalism of the kind they have in Saudi Arabia to the US, would you support this and say there would be no cultural problems of any kind?" ....

      Kevin's answer:
      "The only legit reason to deny entrance into the US is a Criminal Record. That goes for your Obama 300 Million thing, too."
      http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2016/08/gary-johnson-sjw-libertarian-who-loves.html?showComment=1472585419780#c4964360058821511473
      ---------------
      So it appears Kevin is sooo tolerant he'd pretty much tolerate life made impossible for many gay people in America.

      Delete
    20. We want to see if you have even one word of moral condemnation of the cultures and nations that put gays to death for being gay

      Bad people! Bad, bad, bad! You shouldn't do! Happy now? ;-)

      In regards to your bringing up my comment about criminal records, I guess you think I should say the same for those who even think that?

      I am reminded at this time that one of my former fellow pew pushers once told me he thought it was right to put a teenager to death for rebellion because they did so in the Old Testament. To say nothing of mainstream Reaganite Christians who admitted to support Capital Punishment for Homosexuals.

      Right here in good 'ol mainstream White Bread Christian America, LK. So be consistent and support government harrassment of them as well.

      Delete
    21. The nations on that list actually *kill* people. Some minority of blowhard US Christian fundamentalists only *talk* about it.

      Interesting, Kevin. On this issue, you've just proven that the US is *morally superior* to many of the countries on that list for its tolerance of gay people. Keep 'em coming, chump.

      Delete
    22. And I should have pointed out again - though there is no need to - that if you think there is more than a Criminal Record that's valid to keep out Muslims who've never actually killed anyone, then you agree they should be prosecuted for "thinking" that, too.

      Delete
    23. Interesting. So you're saying that if we brought in 200 million people into the US who think gays should be killed for being gays, you'd support this?

      Delete
  9. The nations on that list actually *kill* people. Some minority of blowhard US Christian fundamentalists only *talk* about it

    The Majority of Christian Fundamentalists in the US voted for Reagan & both Bushes, presumably with the intent they would carry out their wishes. Which they did. It's called Proxy Violence.

    If that's "proof" to you, you're grasping at straws and ignoring the logical conclusion of things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bush junior ran in 2000 on a "humble" foreign policy, and many Republicans were actually opposed to Clinton's interventions and wished for a more isolationist foreign policy. The hope for a less violent and less interventionist foreign policy is also what made Trump popular amongst Republicans, as against war hawks like Jeb and Rubio.

      Stop f*cking lying, dickwad.

      Delete
    2. Here is the George W. Bush Republicans voted for in 2000:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc

      Delete
    3. Bush junior ran in 2000 on a "humble" foreign policy

      Ummmm... Bush LOST the popular vote running on that platform in 2000. He won by about 3% in 2004 after his true intentions were known. Gee, I wonder where he picked up that support?

      But thanks for proving [once again] that we need not take Trump's better stated intentions for granted.

      Delete
    4. Hahaha... Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, owing to Democratic voters, but Republicans voted for him. So logically shouldn't Republicans have abandoned him in 2000, if they were all evil war hawks?

      Delete
    5. "But thanks for proving [once again] that we need not take Trump's better stated intentions for granted."

      That wasn't your argument, you dishonest twat. You argued that Republicans and US Christian fundamentals are all or mostly all evil bloodcrazed war hawks.

      Yet Trump said he wanted less intervention, peace with Russia and no more national building wars. He won a big majority of the evangelical vote:

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/11/09/exit-polls-show-white-evangelicals-voted-overwhelmingly-for-donald-trump/?utm_term=.7d8bb315913f

      Your theory just got shot down in flames.

      Delete
    6. That wasn't your argument, you dishonest twat. You argued that Republicans and US Christian fundamentals are all or mostly all evil bloodcrazed war hawks.

      No, my argument has been that there are such people - and those mostly voted GOP. Therefore to be consistent, you should persecute them as well. It wasn't me who tagged a whole group of people with a broad brush. You're thinking of your own points, here.

      Your theory just got shot down in flames.

      I had the same argument with Mr. Marmur on your blog, and I'll tell you the same thing I told him: White Evangelical Christians 1980 - 2008 is not necessarily synonymous with the same constituency via 2012 until now. Lots has changed. There was the visibility of the Sojouners crowd and the rise of Emergent Christianity, for starters. And as I told DM, a lot of the more conservative ones may be rallying around Trump to avoid Clinton. Big deal, so did a lot of Bernie Sanders supporters.

      My theories look pretty flame resistant, AFAICS ;-)

      Delete
  10. So logically shouldn't Republicans have abandoned him in 2000, if they were all evil war hawks

    Where did I make any Dem/GOP connection to this? There are plenty of assholes who are registered Independent & Democrat, too. Both parties are two cheeks on the same ass and both stink as far as I'm concerned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting, Kevin.

      So you're saying your previous slagging off about Christian fundamentalists (few of whom vote Democratic) all being evil warmongers turns out to be horsesh*t?

      Delete
  11. So you're saying your previous slagging off about Christian fundamentalists (few of whom vote Democratic) all being evil warmongers turns out to be horsesh*t?

    No, that doesn't logically follow at all. But I'll let you think that if it makes you feel better :D

    ReplyDelete
  12. LK Ken B
    guys i gave up on argue with kevin long time ago.

    since he is using the favourite tactic of any identity politics champion (no matter of conservative or democrat) to play a dummy about common sense politicallyincorrect issues and when you are saying it loud he will use in order to race/religious etc baiting you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know, I'm pretty certain the things I've been saying is clear as a bell to anyone with an open mind enough to attempt to understand. I think someone driven by emotion and fear-clouded moorings is not in much of a place to grasp the kernels of truth therein. Not to mention being ignorant of Spiritual truths.

      You can't grasp the Spiritual by testing it under a microscope like an experiment. It must be revealed to you. And that takes a willing an open heart the comes from a place of realizing I'm just as bad a sinner as the next guy.

      But there's the rub isn't it? You guys absolutely do not think in those terms. I've brought this up here before and was told "Oh sure, there is such a thing as a worse sinner. There is, there is, there is!"

      The other thing I am convicted of is that there is no need to repay evil for evil, and I know God will honor my attempts to do the right thing. Pity you folks can't enjoy that same assurance.

      What you guys do is fall back on with your one-sized fits all epithets ("Regressive!"Identity!") when you can't handle someone of a different take on these things. You aren't even attempting to understand where I'm coming from. You see things in extreme blacks & whites, and you can't understand how I can see dark, dirty, dingy greys where you think it should be so clear.

      But even putting all of "religious" stuff aside, it boils down to this: I'm most happy to revise my opinion on something when solid evidence is shown to the contrary. You guys - meaning LK & Ken, have not shown me one thing that a reasonable person couldn't raise several objections to. Or that truly addressed the points I was making.

      An example is this use of Evangelicals voting for Trump in trying to prove "See, those people aren't hawkish nationalist no-necks! They voted for Trump. They must be so peaceful!" Try that one on anyone who's studied any level of Sociology focused on Christians. And be prepared to be laughed out of the place. But even a 5th grader could grasp that you can't use 2016 politics to speak to everything that ever happened in every other election year. So simple!

      Not to mention that anyone with a nose for research can come up with pretty solid observations made by many pundits that Trump's admin picks tend to cast doubt on most if not all of his pre-election rhetoric.

      And then Ken with his "See, one guy low on the totem pole said 'No Registry!'" It must be so! Of course, that doesn't hold when I point out that Pence is a free-trader from Hell, now does it? Of course not. Doesn't suit your argumentative purposes.

      If you guys would at least try to "shoot me down in flames" with relevant information, that'd be different. But as it is, I can apply basic rules of Inductive Logic to your claims, and make them look like a pop can after a hot summer night date with a steamroller.

      Sorry to break it you y'all buncha wise, all-knowing pundits, but there are highly intelligent and well verse people that can disagree with the things you've gone on about here today. Imagine that!

      Delete
    2. Yes, Daniel is right. Not just Kevin. I saw a lot of people playing dumb this election. They fancy themselves the smart ones too.

      Delete
  13. Snowden talks about his chances under Trump, who has been called a "traitor" by the POTUS-elect. And Trump's pick for CIA-director has called Snowden a "liar" and a "traitor":

    https://youtu.be/F06n348V0f8

    But no, Trump ain't influenced by Neocons. Keep tellin' yourself that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No American president -- whether Democratic or Republican or probably even of the Green party -- could pardon Snowden, as the intelligence agencies would be in an outroar and the political opposition would be huge.

      This doesn't prove Trump is taking his policy advice from neocons.

      Delete
    2. No American president -- whether Democratic or Republican or probably even of the Green party -- could pardon Snowden

      You neglected to note the Tweet made by the POTUS-elect on Mr. Snowden. That should be enough to tell you he's closer to McCain than Ron Paul or Jill Stein on the question of what to do about the Whistle-blower.

      And actually, you're wrong factually speaking:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_granted_clemency_by_the_President_of_the_United_States#Woodrow_Wilson

      "Frederick Krafft – convicted for alleged violation of the Espionage Act. Only person convicted under this law to receive a full executive pardon."

      This doesn't prove Trump is taking his policy advice from neocons

      Also factually wrong:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pompeo#National_security

      Delete
  14. Exactly what I've been trying to say:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_View_(U.S._TV_series)#O.27Donnell.2FHasselbeck_argument

    "O'Donnell consistently brought up recent news about the war in Iraq, and criticized the US media for its lack of coverage on the Bush administration's actions and policies. On May 17, 2007, O'Donnell rhetorically asked, "655,000 Iraqi civilians dead. Who are the terrorists? If you were in Iraq and another country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?""

    Who are the terrorists, indeed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a crime against international law and a horrendous moral outrage, for which the US government leadership at that time should be tried in a fair court of law.

      But why should ordinary people in America or Europe have to suffer cultural and demographic suicide just to indulge your mentally-ill fantasies about multiculturalism, when they don't want such immigration? Why should their countries have to be made increasingly unsafe for women or subject to more and more violent Islamist extremism?

      Delete
    2. And notice how you can't even give me an honest answer to this question I posed to you above, Kevin:

      "Interesting. So you're saying that if we brought in 200 million people into the US who think gays should be killed for being gays, you'd support this?"

      Delete
    3. But why should ordinary people in America or Europe have to suffer cultural and demographic suicide just to indulge your mentally-ill fantasies about multiculturalism, when they don't want such immigration? Why should their countries have to be made increasingly unsafe for women or subject to more and more violent Islamist extremism

      The US ain't suffering from any such thing.

      You do realize that Nations, Cultures, People Groups, etc. are a temporary thing, right?

      People in sovereign nations have a right to paddle their own boats, I have no quarrels with that. I give Islamic countries and the European White Guy who hates foreigners the same courtesy, however. Whether I think such people are enlightened and living in the 21st Century is another matter.

      Delete