All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[Hermit]

I'm happy to acknowledge those differences Jim, but in a managed democracy such differences that there are only amount to branding distinctions within narrowly defined boundaries that offer a choice between continuity or more of the same.

You sound as if it doesn't matter whether Biden wins the presidency in November, or if Trump gets another four years. If so, are you serious?

[Brian Peacock]

I'm happy to acknowledge those differences Jim, but in a managed democracy such differences that there are only amount to branding distinctions within narrowly defined boundaries that offer a choice between continuity or more of the same.

You sound as if it doesn't matter whether Biden wins the presidency in November, or if Trump gets another four years. If so, are you serious?

I think in a straight choice between the nicer liberals or the nastier liberals you'd be silly to vote for the nasties. But that wasn't my point. A managed democracy is one that offers you a choice at the ballot box but it doesn't offer you a choice about what you can choose from - that is decided for you, and thus one's voting choices are managed by the very small number of people who already have power and control within the system.

[Scot Dutchy]

A 'managed democracy' is an oxymoron. Another wondrous thought up word? They are not democracies and mostly confined to the Anglo-Saxon world. There is no system in Europe that approaches the corruption of the USA except the UK.

[Hermit]

I'm happy to acknowledge those differences Jim, but in a managed democracy such differences that there are only amount to branding distinctions within narrowly defined boundaries that offer a choice between continuity or more of the same.

You sound as if it doesn't matter whether Biden wins the presidency in November, or if Trump gets another four years. If so, are you serious?

I think in a straight choice between the nicer liberals or the nastier liberals you'd be silly to vote for the nasties. But that wasn't my point. A managed democracy is one that offers you a choice at the ballot box but it doesn't offer you a choice about what you can choose from - that is decided for you, and thus one's voting choices are managed by the very small number of people who already have power and control within the system.

You're right. We do not have have a choice about what we can choose from. This, however, does not mean the choice between nicer liberals and nastier liberals is as meaningless as choosing between Pepsi and Coke or between Reebok and Nike. The welfare of us plebeians is significantly altered by who we vote for, be it Republican or Democrat in the USA, Labor or the Libeal/National party coalition in Australia, Tory or labour in the UK or any other country in which the only options are between neoliberals and conservatives.

If anything, your observation my be profound, but on the very grounds that we are not given a choice about what we can choose from, it is, to put it mildly, merely academic. Maybe create a separate thread on the topic?

[Brian Peacock]

A 'managed democracy' is an oxymoron. Another wondrous thought up word?

No, I haven't made it up. It's a practical term that describes a set of real-world conditions. Look it up.

[pErvinalia]

You triggered him when you wrote "democracy". As we know, it's one of his things.

[Brian Peacock]

I'm happy to acknowledge those differences Jim, but in a managed democracy such differences that there are only amount to branding distinctions within narrowly defined boundaries that offer a choice between continuity or more of the same.

You sound as if it doesn't matter whether Biden wins the presidency in November, or if Trump gets another four years. If so, are you serious?

I think in a straight choice between the nicer liberals or the nastier liberals you'd be silly to vote for the nasties. But that wasn't my point. A managed democracy is one that offers you a choice at the ballot box but it doesn't offer you a choice about what you can choose from - that is decided for you, and thus one's voting choices are managed by the very small number of people who already have power and control within the system.

You're right. We do not have have a choice about what we can choose from. This, however, does not mean the choice between nicer liberals and nastier liberals is as meaningless as choosing between Pepsi and Coke or between Reebok and Nike.

The welfare of us plebeians is significantly altered by who we vote for, be it Republican or Democrat in the USA, Labor or the Libeal/National party coalition in Australia, Tory or labour in the UK or any other country in which the only options are between neoliberals and conservatives.

If anything, your observation my be profound, but on the very grounds that we are not given a choice about what we can choose from, it is, to put it mildly, merely academic. Maybe create a separate thread on the topic?

Yeah, it's probably better placed in the Capitalism thread, but I was responding to what Cunt posted here rather than there.

[Brian Peacock]

I'd also say that as an idea it isn't 'merely academic' if one is interested in promoting the possibility of a progressive politics.

[Hermit]

I'd also say that as an idea it isn't 'merely academic' if one is interested in promoting the possibility of a progressive politics.

Quite. In that context it is definitely not merely academic. In the context of this thread it is worth no more than a brief mention at best.

[Brian Peacock]

Indeed.

[Tero]

[Animavore]

Trump is refusing to unveil Obama's portrait at the White House, breaking a 40-year tradition

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-r ... &r=US&IR=T

Sad, insecure, pathetic little weasel.

[Cunt]

Agreed, but I didn't expect YOU to talk about Obama that way.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing ... e-nbc-news

Former President Obama is uninterested in participating in the tradition with Trump in office

[Tero]

[Svartalf]

It's alright, he's a big pussy.