Trump enablers are not our allies no matter what they call themselves.

They were alleging rw smears.

Glenn Greenwald, Jill Stein, and other Trump enablers are not our friends.

Greenwald is accusing "us" of McCarthyism because we oppose Russian meddling in our elections and the elections of our friends. Russia is trying to undermine Angela Merkel in Germany and bolster Marine LePen in France. What the hell is good about that?

...here, and gave them a history lesson, but I thought they were just ignorant and tossing words around. Now I know it's not just one person, but a Greenwald fan.

Why put it here and give it exposure?

What did he write that you disagree with?

Just didn't have time to get past the first bit

Ms. Streep had every right to roast Trump for making fun of a physically challenged guy. We all did the same thing here. The only difference is we don't have Ms. Streep's celebrity.

He then goes on to cite all the so called progressives who enable Drumpf. He also blows up the straw man that main stream Democrats want war with Russia. We just want them to not meddle in our elections or the elections of our friends. That's not asking much.

the Worm Ouroboros consumes itself by ingesting its own tail.

The far fringes always seem to end up in the same place and work toward the same ultimate goals, as far as I can tell.

but don't seem to care about the people they hurt on the way to achieve said values

Anyone with an economic or foreign policy vision more than an inch to the left of John McCain needs to shut the hell up.

One example : Greenwald's thesis is that there is nothing to the Russia-Trump connection and suggesting that there is is a form of McCarthyism.

Putin did everything he could to give us Trump so we can be as miserable as Russians. That sucks.

and the people who voted for them. Greenwald's opinion on the Russia matter won't change the facts as they are brought to light.

Centrist democrats, who have adopted right-wing economic and foreign policy stances (which actually have ruined millions of peoples lives and wreaked havoc across the middle east, cause a refugee crisis, and enabled the rise of the most dangerous terrorist organization in the hisory of the world), won't be able to us Trump to shield themselves from criticism forever.

It was Bush who attacked Iraq and destabilized the M.E. We opposed it, if for no other reason it was reckless.


Back to the OP, not doing anything to enable Trump seems like a good first principle for anybody who holds themselves out as being on the left.

It reminds me of Kant's admonition that when weighing the morality of a potential act one has to consider how he or she would feel if that act was made into a moral law. My admonition is one needs to ask himself or herself if their actions enable Trump.

Of the last three democratic presidential candidates, two supported the war.

The mood of the country was downright frightening, and Bush had an approval rating over 80%.

I don't think anyone seriously believes a President Al Gore, John Kerry, or Hillary Clinton would have invaded Iraq on a pretense like W chose to do.

That shitty Trump lie might get you upvotes in the fake-progressive crazyhouse subs @ Reddit, but people here aren't that stupid.

We ran a candidate that voted for the Iraq war.

And then we helped topple the Libyan government, and ISIS spread there. And then we started funding one side of a civil war in Syria, and ISIS moved into there as well.

Can I humbly request that as democrats we should be against creating power-vacuums in the middle east? Or does that enable Trump somehow?

But we had major democrats who were right there along with him, and they successfully made the Iraq war a bipartisan disaster.

This was still >>>Bush's<<< war. He bears the responsibility for it.

It started as disillusioned Sunni remnants of the army

Article doesn't say that nor does OP.

glad others are finally waking up

It's a fucking shame there are leftists who are as innumerate, misinformed, and as ignorant as any Trump voter. The anti-intellectual left is no better than the anti-intellectual right.

Hillary Clinton ran on a very progressive platform, at least so far as is possible in a nation where a third of all voters are anti-intellectual fascists and prey to grifters of all stripes, racism abounds, and the middle is bamboozled by right-of-center television and radio propaganda fed to them by oligarchs, yes, even PBS and NPR.

My personal political opinions are leftwards of most DU posters and my views as an environmentalist are extreme. But my politics are entirely practical.

Anyone who was unable to vote for Clinton needs to carefully examine their own motivations. Was it misogyny? Was it a desire to burn the place down? Did it bubble up out of feelings of powerlessness and anger?

"Alt" left or right only means that someone is making shit up and there are only a few reasons for that -- they are trying to rip you off, they are trying to pump themselves up, and/or they are truly ignorant. Trump is a combination of all three, but so is Jill Stein.

The "don't vote" crowd. People died for the right to vote.

expensive stuff had better look at trump's lifestyle. Glitter and polish are part of the Hollywood magic. In some cases, it helps people to escape their daily troubles. In other cases, it shines a light on the human condition and helps us understand ourselves.

The pomp and circumstance of government is supposed to reflect responsibility, power and gravitas. Trump cheapens and tarnishes that. He turns it into fool's gold.

Like those on the far right, the far left despises the center ( even center left) because that's where you find reformers and those working in the system. Gradual reform is their enemy, where half measures are derided, and since one can never get what one wants all the time, they end up with nothing they ever want, giving them more reason to complain incessantly rather than accomplish something significant.

They'd rather live in an alternate universe where they never have to engage with , find common ground with or compromise with other well meaning individuals whose perspectives are different to theirs.

So they avoid the mainstream, labeling it "Establishment" Or "Elitist" or some other catchall phrase to demonize "Others".

I'm certainly "fringe" in many ways. If I was Emperor of Earth I'd tax the billionaires out of existence and ban all fossil fuels on a time scale of less than fifteen years, letting the chips fall as they may. We would be paying people to experiment with low energy, low environmental impact lifestyles. Every sort of education would be free, everything from doctoral studies in nuclear physics to art classes for senior citizens. I also know that's not going to happen. I still insist that economic productivity as we now define it is a direct measure of the damage we are doing to the earth's natural environment and our own human spirit.

In "real life" my politics are entirely practical. Jimmy Carter was the first president I actively campaigned for. I've been an enthusiastic supporter of Obama, Hillary Clinton, Jerry Brown and other Democrats who are, from my perspective, slightly right-of-center. But the U.S.A. itself is a right-of-center nation. Obama was the most competent U.S. President of my lifetime and and one of the great Presidents of U.S. History, very well representing all of us, just as Trump is turning out to be a worst President, representing a minority of very unpleasant people, not all of them U.S. Americans.

The ends of the "horseshoe" represent the U.S.A.'s nasty anti-intellectual streak, places where ignorance, innumeracy, racism, misogyny, and regressive religious beliefs overcome rational thought. Unfortunately that's where maybe 30% of U.S. Americans live full time, both the Trump voters, and those who couldn't vote for Hillary for some bizarre "alt-left" reason.

What you describe is in many ways a mirror image of my own values. There's my ideal in politics, but I also acknowledge the practical side of politics. My own dream is an economy powered by renewable energy, a universal basic income and universal health care and the worst thing I could do is tear down those who've worked towards progress (while not "perfect" ) on those fronts, especially in such a high partisan political climate such as we've seen over the past couple decades.

Clickbait indeed. Because you know all those darn actors are to blame for everything! Yep, they run the country...shocking right? You all thought it was the group in D.C....nah, never. It is those the corporate media call out the most. Keep falling for it!

Same shit, different day. Same results, different year.

Guess that is the way it is going to be.

The criticism is sharp but it reminds me of a verse I once read about "judge not lest you be judged".

I guess we are all guilty of that at some time or other?

That he takes exception to those who accuse Democrats who are upset that Putin put his finger on the scale for Drumpf of McCarthyism?

That he takes exception to the professor who poohed poohed Meryl Streep for lambasting Drumpf for making fun of a physically challenged reporter?

That he takes exception to those who saw no difference between Hillary and Drumpf?

There are no winners

We "alt-lefties" on facebook were discussing this silly piece earlier today. Wolcott sounds like somebody who doesn't handle criticism of Hillary Clinton well. One thing I am glad about is that people are finally realizing that liberals and the left are not the same thing, or at least leftists don't think so!

There is no such thing as the “alt-left.”

Sarah Jones

There is no such thing as the “alt-left.”But in a piece for Vanity Fair, James Wolcott pretends otherwise:
Disillusionment with Obama’s presidency, loathing of Hillary Clinton, disgust with “identity politics,” and a craving for a climactic reckoning that will clear the stage for a bold tomorrow have created a kinship between the “alt-right” and an alt-left. They’re not kissin’ cousins, but they caterwaul some of the same tunes in different keys.
Wolcott admits the left “can’t match” the alt-right “for strength, malignancy, or tentacled reach”—then proceeds to make just such an argument. This is bad writing in service of a bad argument: “People say things I don’t like” is not the same thing as “people advocate for a white ethnostate.” This is precisely the false equivalency Wolcott makes by using the phrase “alt-left.” It is a disingenuous characterization designed to undermine leftist claims.

His terminology—e.g. “dude-bros”—skips over women and people of color on the left, individuals who might as well not exist when it comes to this type of critic and who happen to be particularly vulnerable to alt-right violence. The aim of socialism is liberation for all, which is to be accomplished via the redistribution of wealth. The aim of the alt-right is white supremacy. There is no similarity here.

And there is little similarity between the rhetoric of leftists and the rhetoric of the alt-right. Leftists do not send Jewish journalists photos of ovens. Leftists have not called in SWAT teams to harass feminists they do not like. Leftists have not used racial slurs to intimidate journalists online, nor have they called for any restrictions on the freedom of the press.

Absent any real similarity between the left and the alt-right, smears are all some liberals have: