The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
You stated the common definition of neoliberal. We sorted out the criteria via (I think) Wikipedia, and I agreed. You then applied it to Hillary, who met all of one of the criteria. And when I pointed this out, you dodged my comment and undoubtedly babbled about The ElitesTM.
Now on this:
This is because it applies too closely to you and your views, IMO. Your champion in the '16 elections was Hillzilla and you have been very critical of those of us who complained that she did not actually support progressive policies.
Small problem here: I voted for Bernie. But, by all means, knock those straw men down.
Granted, I did so mostly to help send a message to the Clintons on foreign policy grounds, because Hillary is too hawkish. I also voiced skepticism of Bernie's ability to win, because I knew Bernie had skeletons in his closet that Hillary wasn't attacking him on -- because she knew she had him beat and didn't want to harm party unity. And because it was clear Bernie was basically the dog who caught the car.
This all seems perfectly reasonable to me. They were both lousy candidates, and I had no champion in that race, so I voted practically. The closest thing to my champion was the guy they were running to assume office behind.
So don't put words in my mouth.
As has been told to you -- by me, Izzy, others -- again and again, we agree with you in large part on Bill Clinton. The Blair analogy is quite right with respect to Bill. But The ClintonsTM are two different people. They always have been. You do understand that Hillary Clinton is allowed to have her own views that may contradict her husband's, right?
And we have pointed out to you, numerous times, the differences in policy proposals. You assert The ClintonsTM lack of support for unions. I don't know why. And you fail to reckon with the obscenely-obvious issue that the very people you claim The ClintonsTM have fucked on that are the same people who voted for Ronald Reagan. You further ignore that and assert that working-class whites are right to lash out, which is an utterly irrational argument.
As for the last paragraph -- yes, people are free to disagree with me on any point I try to make. All I ask is that the disagreement be substantive and not simply moving the goalposts or veering off into utterly-irrelevant assertions.
Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 6 65 comments
by THE Twank - Feb 13 14 comments
by generic - Jan 30 7 comments
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 3 82 comments
by Zwackus - Feb 2 58 comments
by Drew J Jones - Jan 30 85 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 28 13 comments
by Gag Halfrunt - Jan 27 4 comments
by THE Twank - Feb 20
by THE Twank - Feb 1314 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 665 comments
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 382 comments
by Zwackus - Feb 258 comments
by Drew J Jones - Feb 123 comments
by generic - Jan 307 comments
by Drew J Jones - Jan 3085 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 2813 comments
by Gag Halfrunt - Jan 274 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 2712 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 2438 comments
by marco - Jan 2415 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 2224 comments
by Drew J Jones - Jan 2134 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 2111 comments