@sheltech True of course. But no matter how agnostic & open-minded I try to be, I have a hard time accepting the side that believes COVID vaccines are a plot by Bill Gates to microchip everyone, or that Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden lead a globalist cabal of paedophiles, or some of the equally bizarre beliefs held by Trump after watching too much Alex Jones and mainlining QAnon. It's a matter of degree, I guess.
Right, but then moral purity was never an expectation either way. The difference between Dems and Repubs may seem small to some, but one sees terrible consequences when those in power believe in lunatic conspiracy theories. And the worst-off are usually the hardest hit.
The rich may get richer whoever is in power. But the badly-off don't fare the same - they fare very differently. That could not be clearer. And there's a massive difference on urgent issues like environment & pandemics. Trump didn't even think those were issues!
I have a lot of time for criticisms of Dem policy, "DC establishment", aloof "elites", etc - and I liked the policies of Sanders in US and Corbyn in UK. But I have no time for those who say "they're all the same", based on moral comparisons of corruption versus honesty. Of course they're all dishonest & corrupt - politics at that level is a corrupting game. That's why Steve Bannon, the Kochs, the Mercers, all the other hard-right billionaires want the media to frame things in moral terms - "crooked Hillary", "Biden crime family", etc. On that level of debate, they all seem equally bad, and the faux middle-class revolutionaries and privileged nihilist young men, in their moral disgust at Hillary & Co, nudge voting in favour of the right, and we end up with Trump (and Boris fucking Johnson in the UK). But luckily this time around in the US, as many people have commented, it looks as if the black community has "saved America's ass" by overwhelmingly voting to get rid of Trump.
Democracy isn't about perfection or moral purity, but I like to think it does make a difference, albeit gradually and with set-backs. I mean, if we're not interested in social justice at this level, then consider the alternative.
Sanders could've beaten Trump either in '16 or '20, but the DNC would have none of it, so he got screwed by them both times. For that, forever, I have no support for them. I always hated the Republican party ----
Maybe, maybe not. It's interesting that folks like Assange & Greenwald were certain that Hillary Clinton would win against Trump in 2016, claiming that the establishment wouldn't let Trump win. But I like Sanders a lot - tragic that he never ran.
I think "stood" sounds better. I read as much US sourced material as UK stuff, so I lose track of typical usage by either country. I wonder where "run" and "ran" originated, regarding public office. You run when you're late to catch a bus!
I agree.
I think it’s running as in a race to the finish. Sometimes elections in the US are referred to as contests (like dog-and-pony shows).
I think we sometimes say stood and stand in the US when referring to political contests, but it’s less common.
We do still seem to like to say things like, “He stands for nothing” or ask things like, “Why don’t you stand for something?”
Oh and, of course we say, “Stand,” like in the Sly & The Family Stone song called ‘Stand.’
The establishment not only let him in but at times appeared to let him run roughshod over it. Now maybe the message will be once and for all, “No more outsiders! This dog and pony show is sewn up, is a racket, knows best and for good reason: Trump (and all those other clowns like Giuliani and and Q ... and Q Shaman). “
I think of that photo though of all those grinning Republican elites with a grinning Trump in the middle when a day before they appeared to be against Trump. He signed something or other that did a presto-change-o-you-rich-ghouls-just-got much-richer-because-of-ME looked like.
I'm not sure what's going on with the pony here - but in any case, I think you'll agree these are better metaphors than a dog & pony show.
@sheltech True of course. But no matter how agnostic & open-minded I try to be, I have a hard time accepting the side that believes COVID vaccines are a plot by Bill Gates to microchip everyone, or that Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden lead a globalist cabal of paedophiles, or some of the equally bizarre beliefs held by Trump after watching too much Alex Jones and mainlining QAnon. It's a matter of degree, I guess.
Right, but then moral purity was never an expectation either way. The difference between Dems and Repubs may seem small to some, but one sees terrible consequences when those in power believe in lunatic conspiracy theories. And the worst-off are usually the hardest hit.
The rich may get richer whoever is in power. But the badly-off don't fare the same - they fare very differently. That could not be clearer. And there's a massive difference on urgent issues like environment & pandemics. Trump didn't even think those were issues!
I have a lot of time for criticisms of Dem policy, "DC establishment", aloof "elites", etc - and I liked the policies of Sanders in US and Corbyn in UK. But I have no time for those who say "they're all the same", based on moral comparisons of corruption versus honesty. Of course they're all dishonest & corrupt - politics at that level is a corrupting game. That's why Steve Bannon, the Kochs, the Mercers, all the other hard-right billionaires want the media to frame things in moral terms - "crooked Hillary", "Biden crime family", etc. On that level of debate, they all seem equally bad, and the faux middle-class revolutionaries and privileged nihilist young men, in their moral disgust at Hillary & Co, nudge voting in favour of the right, and we end up with Trump (and Boris fucking Johnson in the UK). But luckily this time around in the US, as many people have commented, it looks as if the black community has "saved America's ass" by overwhelmingly voting to get rid of Trump.
Democracy isn't about perfection or moral purity, but I like to think it does make a difference, albeit gradually and with set-backs. I mean, if we're not interested in social justice at this level, then consider the alternative.
Sanders could've beaten Trump either in '16 or '20, but the DNC would have none of it, so he got screwed by them both times. For that, forever, I have no support for them. I always hated the Republican party ----
Maybe, maybe not. It's interesting that folks like Assange & Greenwald were certain that Hillary Clinton would win against Trump in 2016, claiming that the establishment wouldn't let Trump win. But I like Sanders a lot - tragic that he never ran.
Do people in England use the words “stand” and ”stood” instead of the US “run” and “ran?”
I think "stood" sounds better. I read as much US sourced material as UK stuff, so I lose track of typical usage by either country. I wonder where "run" and "ran" originated, regarding public office. You run when you're late to catch a bus!
I agree. I think it’s running as in a race to the finish. Sometimes elections in the US are referred to as contests (like dog-and-pony shows). I think we sometimes say stood and stand in the US when referring to political contests, but it’s less common. We do still seem to like to say things like, “He stands for nothing” or ask things like, “Why don’t you stand for something?” Oh and, of course we say, “Stand,” like in the Sly & The Family Stone song called ‘Stand.’
The establishment not only let him in but at times appeared to let him run roughshod over it. Now maybe the message will be once and for all, “No more outsiders! This dog and pony show is sewn up, is a racket, knows best and for good reason: Trump (and all those other clowns like Giuliani and and Q ... and Q Shaman). “ I think of that photo though of all those grinning Republican elites with a grinning Trump in the middle when a day before they appeared to be against Trump. He signed something or other that did a presto-change-o-you-rich-ghouls-just-got much-richer-because-of-ME looked like.