Trump is blaming Democrat obstructionism for the failure of his healthcare “reform” 

“We had no Democratic support.  They weren’t going to give us a single vote.”

Hmm, that doesn’t remind me at all of Republican resistance to Obamacare back in the day and Obama and Dems blamed the GOP for being obstructionists in the way of progress.

Remember, whether or not resisting the President and the majority party is “obstruction” or “resistance” is 100% dependent on the party alignment and not on any actual principles.

To Republicans and Democrats: fuck your authoritarian bullshit.

If the only philosophy you had in life was christianity, you’d be fucked in the head and dangerous to others. Islam isnt much different. But it helps that people of abrahamic faiths are exposed to ideas that contradict their violent, authoritarian, illiberal, anti-egalitarian ideals. They rationalize those nuanced ideas from philosophies outside their religion, and they reinterpret their religion to be less unhinged and violent. When enough of them do this, new believers join a less deranged version of the ideology. But the holy books dont change, the crazy still leaks through, especially when you teach these crazy ideas to people who are already unstable or find themself in crisis. Some of their ideas are, in themselves, capable of deranging someone who is impressionable and looking for an understanding of the world. Hopefully the age of information prevents people from being indoctrinated into these abrahamic ideologies before they even have a grasp of the rest of the world and other philosophies.

neoliberalism-nightly  asked:

Is there any good reason to not call myself a neoliberal when I discuss politics irl?

“Neoliberal” is both amorphous and abusive, so I’ve always been reluctant to use it. It doesn’t tell someone whether you’re center-right, center-left, center-libertarian, center-authoritarian, or something more radical still.

ACA and AHCA are meaningfully different programs, but they’re both ‘neoliberal’. A private insurance system without regulations and mandates would also be ‘neoliberal’. Even a comprehensive single-payer, single-provider health insurance is apparently ‘neoliberal’ if you have an internal market and a competitive tender.

You can call someone ‘neoliberal’ if the person is more market-friendly than you are and the year is later than 1979. Leftists don’t call pre-war liberals ‘neoliberal’. There’s apparently something special about the post-war period that requires us to call liberal democrats ‘neoliberals’, but forbids us from calling even the most liberal of pre-war figures ‘neoliberals’. There’s no principled reason for it, but at least we’ve been spared the spectacle of anyone calling John Stuart Mill ‘neoliberal’.

If you’re a liberal, call yourself a liberal. Tell people what you believe in. You can call yourself a ‘neoliberal’ if you can explain what that means to you. I just know that it doesn’t mean much to me.

anonymous asked:

You know, I haven't laid much thought into this, so the answer might be obvious to you but: If a population decides to use their democratic vote to elect a real proper authoritarian dictator, should we respect their (unlikely) use of democracy or do you step in and stop the Democratic process then and there. And if so how do you avoid the blatant hypocrisy

You have described one of the classic dilemmas of liberalism.

I, frankly, have no solid answer to it. It seems to come down to indiviudal preference in values.

I’m very liberal, but I have limits.

I would stop humanity from destroying itself, even if it would mean using illiberal methods. I cannot give a good reason for it, since there is no inherent value to humanity’s existence, except that I personally prefer to think about preserving my species as a valubale goal. There is no reason in it, just emotion - I prefer a future with humans to a future without them. 

It is certainly possible for an absolute democracy to do whatever without limits as long as the majority wants it. But that is also not how most democracies work. Consitutional scripture, for example, lays down limits in many countries, in order to prevent a dictatorship even it was wished for by its populace - as long as there is still something or someone able to enforce the constitutional articles.

This is not abbandonement of democratic principles, this is setting reasonable limits owed to practicality. Things taken to the extreme tend to not work very well (there are exceptions to this principle, for certain), so I also do not necessarily see hypocrisy in that. I worry for someone mad enough to think that absolute democracy will produce stable and reasonable long-term results.


CNN’s Brian Stelter exposes the fascistic nature of Trump and Press Sec. Spicer spouting lies to the press and intimidating the media through a series of ESSENTIAL questions.

Look, I know that we can all list off a million and one ways the current news media is garbage and problematic. But they are still our last imperfect line of defense from Trump’s authoritarianism and he is trying to dismantle it. The danger in that is clear.
Obama's Parting Blow Against Privacy
The NSA is relaxing its privacy rules, allowing more information on the private communications of Americans to be sent to 15 different intelligence agencies.
By Conor Friedersdorf

The outgoing Obama administration has just made NSA-collected data available to 17 different federal agencies, providing myriad new possible ways for mass data collection to be abused. And just in time for President Trump.