01-07-2017, 06:18 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-07-2017, 06:19 PM by Eric the Green.)
(01-07-2017, 05:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(01-07-2017, 05:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(01-06-2017, 08:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(01-06-2017, 04:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: A committed neo-liberal like Warren is not going to support a Democrat.
Boomer or not is irrelevant. Neo-liberals are even more common among Xers, I think. At least they used to be.
If I were a neoliberal, I would have been thrilled to vote for Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton's economic policies, with Hillary Clinton's susceptibility to corruption, and a Supreme Court that would eliminate the first and second amendment guarantees that are the common man's only check on the elites? Neoliberal heaven!
Yeah, but you ARE a neo-liberal (might as well be card-carrying, you are SO typical), and you would not have voted for Hillary Clinton.
And she was not susceptible to corruption (those were all lies spread by the fake news generators), her Supreme Court picks would not have eliminated those amendments (just returned to the long-standing, correct interpretation of the Second, perhaps), and the second amendment is no check on anything; it's only protection is for the ability of madmen to shoot up airports (and shopping centers, nightclubs, theaters, schools, what have you). And only a committed neo-liberal would think otherwise.
Apparently you don't understand what the "neo" in neoliberal means.
And "only a committed neo-liberal would think" that assassination and violent armed revolution are checks on the elites? Your trust in the elites is greater than I realized.
I won't say all, but many neo-liberals (aka conservative economic libertarians) actually believe that armed individuals can pull off a revolution. Which of course is baloney, like most neo-liberal beliefs. Only a dangerous anarchist would think that assassination is an appropriate political tool. Do you?