It is understandable that Obama ended up having to wait past the Trump presidency for the ceremony and unveiling of a presidential portrait. We can’t count on Trump making with the required presidential niceties, even if in the immediate post election he did manage — that was short-lived and never to return. Understand, in the past speeches could be peppered with lines of double meaning — read into Bush praising Clinton’s “perseverance” what you will. But no one wants to hear Trump on Obama in a supposed apolitical framework after February of 2017 — as it won’t be apolitical.
This brings up one puzzle. Should Ron Desantis win the White House (or, fill in Republican name) — can Trump make this trip? Trump, out for himself, the partisan make-up fades off. Absent this roadblock, Biden can — I think — as if Trump comes, we can resume the apolitical and bipartisan nature of the ceremony — presidents saying nice things about other presidents — but DeSantis could not afford the Republican Trump fan whiplash at now being part of that “Swamp” in fete-ing the Democrat but not Trump.
I suppose I should swoop back over and watch the Biden speech. I see the image. It is starkness. Starkness is what they are going for. I hear a couple of sound bytes — “Maga Republicans” as a force, A new force, A thing that must be defeated for small-d democracy. I see the reviews.
Rule number one everybody needs know by now: there is no “unifying message”. Every message worth its salt excludes someone. There are different parcels of divisive messages — ones that ameliorate at least a chunk that was dropped off and those that don’t. Either way, someone remains scorned.
A political message is a political message. Supposedly we have “walk back” from the claims of threats. Of course we do. It is a hard partisan walk: the other party sucks, and some of them need to vote for us.
I had a theory developing, and have just heard it articulated by someone on the podcast team at the libertarian Reason. Biden is more susceptible than previous presidents to cadres of professional Historians chattering on about what his presidency means. So he recently heard that he was the last bulwark against the Fascists of various examples — and jumped onto that one. A tad impulsively. I do not think we got this with Clinton and Obama — maybe in thinking at the outset there was a “I’m FDR! / JFK! / the reverse Reagan!”. But by the end of his presidency Clinton was talking up those late 19th century presidents you have to squint your eyes at. Gannon tried to see Trump on some things — Andrew Jackson! — and there were some religious supporters who had a great but sinful ironic Great Leader in Ancient Israeli history to toss out — but he forgot everything the next day. Wait for some historians to come about and start selling something else — and we have an entirely different speech.
At a crossroads, I guess. How to move forward in the perennial hobby candidate tap out in the 30s percentages electoral game. With Larouche, or without?
I saw them once at the Tea Party Rally on Boston Common, I was there with a group of people having a “Real” Tea party counterprotest and there was a Black guy in Nazi wear pretending to be Obama, a guy dressed like the Queen and another as Barney Frank with a pig nose… And they had fake bags of cocaine, saying there was a drug trade between the three or something. It was very strange. Saw them again a couple of times in NYC.
Ooh. Never experienced anything that outré but not surprising, ones at my college were just loud, sanctimonious, and harassed everyone.
The whole finance thing though. I don’t see how he’s gonna be able to get money to do some larouche shit now. Just seems like he’s gonna have a hard time getting kids to sell buttons and dumpster diver to support him.
Daniel Burke had began the distancing…. We will see if it continues. (Update: It doesn’t. Long thread hits at a Those who insisted that it was necessary for “justice” to “tell all” are either disingenuous or blind. An organization capable of mobilizing as CPI did in 2022 is capable of handling a leader’s serious errors with maturity— Uh huh. Moves on to the “brought together in support of Russia” line. (Hell. It made Newsweek.) Seems to end here for the other major Larouche twitterer, not any distancing. I guess they can always go to a “what do you expect when they start letting in furries” tack.
The Ukranians are at fault for Caleb Maupin’s disgusting behavior.” was not a take I was ready for this morning.
Burke may just see recruitment prospects. Probably not the gay furry guy, though. (Less the gay thing than the furry thing.). And yet — This guy still reaches for Burke’s favor– (note, Burke has also insulted fashion choices, the hair coloring, as signifier of unproductive who should be put to work on all those big infrastructure products). it is depressing. (Note — the death squads and apartheid support could theoretically land in the “don’t agree with all things Larouche“. Burke lands on the ” does agree with all things Larouche” — even when they contradict itself.)
probably because they used to make some good stuff on youtube before falling in with the lysenko was right, dugin is cool, dinosaurs never existed people
No. The organization votes to dissolve. Of course, that does open the doors — splinter — go off in whatever direction that gives your life meaning. Toward whatever Maupin tries. Toward whatever vision the rest hold up.
Hey. The woman on the furthest left once shouted gibberish to Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. An up and comer if there ever was one. Eventually she will win a percent of the vote. Meanwhile, there are some politicians who have their start in politics with something like Rachel Brown and Diane Sare’s “make a ruckus before politician” who will pick up at least 40 percent — and probably over 50.
Sare then marches into friendly channels such as The Ron Paul Institute — and there I will need to check in to see what Ron Paul and/or his institute actually think.
There’s this meme slogan going around “Patri*tic Social*st” online circles that’s just “There Are No Limits To Growth” or some variation thereof. Extreme LaRouche vibes.
The only way you’ve never seen so many windmills is if you haven’t been to west Texas, Colorado, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, or a dozen other states in the last 20 years. Get out and see America, noob
LaRouche Mvmt pros: some kinda good science research advocacy LaRouche Mvmt cons: literally cultist lunatics foaming at the mouth about the british royal family and fema camps
Odd perspective: Larouche faded away after 2004 other than a brief comeback to compare Obamacare to Nazi death panels. Moscow literally sent an asset to visit him in a US prison lol, cant make it up
There’s this odd sense I have where in the flow of this argument — where when he finds himself stuck (mind you, some of the points I do not entirely disagree with) — and at that instance — blows out the “Nazis in the Ukraine!” card — even though it has nothing to do with anything posted before by either party.
Just a LaRouche billboard in the wild. A LaRouchite in main recently tried to convince me that solar panels and wind turbines would “kill more people then the Holocaust”
I have dribbled out various anti-anti Trump commentary (if rarely anything much pro-Trump) over the past few years, and if forced can construct a sympathetic portrait of some policies and politics (until his final month, I preferred President Trump to President Bush) — but when staring at that which lpac thinks Trump is –– good lord, they live in an alternate universe. Following the cartoon, A member of the still pro- trump LORG lets er rip: I called attention to the fact that your crowd abandoned LaRouche, who was brilliant, in search of some grubby dollars from a few Republican party boneheads.
Sure, sure — Lyndon LaRouche described the Iranian revolutionaries as “hordes,” called Hoxha a cult-like dictator and a “puppet of Kojeve” (a Russian neo-Hegelian philosopher) and the Albanian self-determination struggle in the 1980s as a tool of ‘British’ intelligence. — but history is quickly rewritten — he also despised FDR after all — and now to point out inconsistencies is… “cope”.
Sarcasm, I assume. Thank you for doing this. If it weren’t for your efforts we wouldn’t be able to tell that Larouche movement isn’t exactly on the up and up
Why Larouchies hate video games: just joined the ck3 after the end team so i asked womu if she had any fun little ideas to suggest for post-apocalyptic minnesota lore and she immediately got WAY too excited with violent fantasies like “well we could take wisconsinites and drown them in our lakes” Like baby chill. make a larouche cult pls
Sameera Khan, Socialistmma — Note: Twitter and @patreon are American companies, and they allow kooks on the platform that put Russia Today to shame. — as they should.
New inaccuracy! Debs and LaRouche ran from prison (IIRC, Debs did better in prison than he did the prior times he ran). Deb’s high point was 1912, not 1920.
At first I glance at the “Nick Adams” tweet and assume a right-wing commentary saying partisan things that show the splintered reality we live in. But going into further tweets, I see that he is on the “Urban Meyer is an NFL coach!” / “Jaguars need Tim Tebow!” — and I begin to suspect he is a parody.
Back in the day: Donald Trump: A mafia don with pompadour published March 20, 2016 and The Dangerous Deception called The Trump Presidency published in 2016. Engdahl was editor of the Lyndon LaRouche Economic Intellegence Review/EIR group newspaper which published more stories Countervailing this.
Irony. No self awareness. conspiracy culture was invented by the ruling class to distract and misdirect the working class from material reality. One might even say, they have conspired to do this. See too frequent incantations ala let them and their CIA RTSG scream into the void — Joint Intel ops, And. Conspiracies are — work your analysis carefully.
There was a sizable chunk of voters who cast their lot with Obama over Romney in 2012 and then went for Trump over Clinton in 2016. This was in consternation to various Democrats, I would find it an insult Obama said.
I am thinking this over with some comments section on conservative websites on ranked choice and the election of Peltola over Palin. The Republican split which put Peltola over both Palin and the Republican Begich in round one of vote tallying kept along in round two as Begich’s vote siphoned 50 – 29 over to Palin and Peltola. Or, the chunk of Begich voters who favored Peltola over Palin was sizable enough to drag her over the finish line. The complaint, their indictment on the new process, is that with 60 percent voting Republican, and look at the policies — Palin’s and Begich’s are much more aligned than Begich’s and Peltola’s. Sure. Yet Trump on down describes a whole mass of Republicans whose policies are mostly aligned with his as “RINO” s — so apparently there is difference enough, and Sarah Palin herself gave the game away by urging her voters not to pick a second choice — begging the question of why she would think Begich voters shouldn’t be free to reciprocate in kind.
Is this “small d” Democracy in action? I see that The Nation decrees it so, but their headline gives away that they do so at least in part by dent of outcome — “How Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system freed the majority of voters to elect pro-choice, pro-labor Democrat Mary Peltola”. Meanwhile, a different election with an outcome they did not like — a congressional primary race in Texas between Henry Cuellar and Jessica Cisneros, they decried as the Democratic Party machine stomping on democracy, even though the voters had every opportunity to follow through with Alexandria Ocasio Cortez campaigning for Cisneros but narrowly followed James Clyburn as campaigning for Cuellar instead.
On that, did the “ranked choice” even alter the equation of the damned election? At least in theory if presented with a ballot that has those two names — Sarah Palin (R) and Mary Peltola (D), the same 29 percent who cast Peltola over Palin should do so in that general election. And perhaps, under the long established system, the upset still would have happened. Or, in that small d democratic sense, should have happened, even if it wouldn’t. Or, perhaps what happens is that a sizable chunk of the Begich (R) — Peltola (D) vote stick with the (R) of Palin — the partisan and theoretically policy pull, never mind it is the half term governor who soured a lot of voters with a turn in political identity in her vice presidential campaign (and I have heard a number of Alaskans ask a “where the hell did this crap come from?” — whatever their opinions and misgivings before — in 2008) turned recurring reality star who hasn’t lived in the state all these years– they are stuck voting for — but can give her and that baggage a middle finger under the new system after casting their “R” vote by dropping her aside with ranked choice, thus ending up with a that lippant Peltola vote. Those Begich — Peltola votes are the swing votes in hypothetical alternate realities. Appeal to them accordingly.
Trying to lay outcome aside (it is certainly better that she not be in office), I do not have a clear answer on that split — personality comes into play — and think there probably isn’t a clear answer — just piles of gives and takes — too murky and ephemeral is the definition of “small d democracy”.
Ronny Elliott "Mr. Edison's Electric Chair"
Bobby Short "Don't Bring Lulu"
TV On the Radio "Dreams"
Archers of Loaf "White Trash Heroes"
Murray Attaway "Fear of God"
Fountains of Wayne "I Want an Alien for Christmas"
The Divorce "Yes"
The Bluetones "Mudslide"
Black Box Recorder "Brutality"
Meat Puppets "Leaves"
Gorillaz "Clint Eastwood"
Neil Young "Keep on Rocking in the Free World"
The Louvin Brothers "The Great Atomic Power"