Bill Clinton’s Global Capitalism Is Responsible for Today’s Problems

[BeaverFever]

A New Progressive Account of Clinton Presidency Finds Him Responsible for Many of Today’s Ills

In his 1996 State of the Union Address, President Bill Clinton declared, “The era of big government is over.” House and Senate Republicans jumped up and applauded, and newspapers around the country used the claim in their headlines. Less noticed was Clinton’s next sentence: “But we cannot go back to a time when our citizens were left to themselves” as well as his assertion in 1998 that “Our mission has been to save government from its own excesses so that it can be a progressive force.”

Whatever his intentions, Nelson Lichtenstein and Judith Stein assert in their new book, A Fabulous Failure: The Clinton Presidency and the Transformation of American Capitalism, that “the era of big government is over,” was evidenced by the accommodations the Clinton administration made to global corporate capitalism.

Lichtenstein, a research professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the author of A Century of American Labor, and the late Judith Stein, a former professor of history at the Graduate Center, City University of New York, and the author of Pivotal Decade: How the United States Traded Factories For Finance in the Seventies, provide an extraordinarily detailed — and often compelling — analysis of Clinton’s domestic policies from an unabashedly progressive perspective. Many of those policies, according to the authors, contributed to growing inequality, recurring financial crises, and the rise of right-wing populism in the United States.

Lichtenstein and Stein demonstrate that Clinton, heavily influenced by Robert Rubin, chair of the National Economic Council and then-Secretary of the Treasury, supported legislation designed to unleash market forces in the U.S. economy. Although deficit reduction erased his promise of a middle-class tax cut and investments in education, infrastructure, and the environment, Clinton boasted at the end of the ‘90s that the budget cuts narrowly passed by Congress in 1993 freed up about $1 trillion for private sector investment.

 

Former US president Bill Clinton delivers a speech in front of government headquarters in Tirana on July 3, 2023, during a ceremony held in his honor as part of his first official visit to Albania.ADNAN BECI/AFP via Getty Images

The president, the authors suggest, never really addressed the extent to which his emphasis on deficits became a politically potent symbol of the federal government’s inability to manage its own affairs. Or the “paradox” identified by Robert Kuttner, editor of The American Prospect: “You don’t get deficit reduction by targeting deficit reduction. You achieve it — over time — by raising the rate of growth and fixing the health system” to slow inflation, a reform Clinton failed to get through Congress. Moreover, throughout (and beyond) the ‘90s, more money poured into speculative bubbles than productive domestic investment.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Lichtenstein and Stein claim, was a “political blunder of the first order” that split the Democratic Party, alienated working-class voters, and contributed to the defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016. Opposed by labor unions, consumer advocates, and environmentalists, NAFTA lacked enforcement mechanisms to ensure that Mexico narrow the eight-to-one wage differential north and south of the Rio Grande or improve working conditions. NAFTA produced downward pressure on the salaries of U.S. workers; devastated textile and apparel industries in the South (accelerating GOP dominance in the region); increased investment of U.S. corporations in Mexico; and, by putting farmers in direct competition with agribusiness enterprises in the U.S. and Canada, helped make Mexico the largest contributor to international labor migration in the world between 2000 and 2005.

Meanwhile, although the authors acknowledge that NAFTA and cheap labor in foreign factories in Asia drove down the prices of imported consumer goods, saving each American family thousands of dollars, they estimate that China’s admission to the World Trade Organization led to losses of more than 1.5 million manufacturing jobs in the United States, with Wal-Mart responsible for nearly 200,000 of them.

And the Clinton administration made capital mobility throughout the globe a core priority. The repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall law (which mandated the separation of traditional commercial banking and more risky investment operations), passage of the Telecommunications Act, and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (which exempted the OTC derivatives markets from all federal regulation), the authors indicate, contributed to merger mania, industry oligopoly, and huge, volatile capital flows.

Specialists in labor history, Lichtenstein and Stein also take Clinton to task for what they perceive as his indifference to trade unions. The president, they indicate, did not press very hard for the National Labor Relations Board to increase protection for union organizing and bargaining rights — or for congressional legislation prohibiting companies from breaking strikes by bringing in replacement workers. And, they say, Clinton was willing to play down violations of human rights abroad — including forced labor, child labor, and sweatshop conditions — because threatening to limit access to American markets might imperil lucrative supply chains and trade agreements with “rogue” nations.

A salutary impact of the election of Donald Trump in 2016, Lichtenstein and Stein conclude, is that it pushed the Democratic Party to the left. In 2020, President Biden embraced that shift, with a big assist from COVID-19 and narrow majorities in the House and Senate, by pushing through a progressive agenda, culminating in the American Rescue Plan and Build Back Better.

That said, A Fabulous Failure ends on a cautionary note: The social forces necessary to implement a comprehensive and durable legislative strategy to build an industrial base, enhance public investment, reduce inequality, and combat climate change, are not now in place. These days, the United States needs “their transformational energy” more than ever.

Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies at Cornell University.

https://themessenger.com/opinion/new-progressive-account-of-clinton-presidency-finds-him-responsible-for-many-of-todays-ills

 

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

A New Progressive Account of Clinton Presidency Finds Him Responsible for Many of Today’s Ills

In his 1996 State of the Union Address, President Bill Clinton declared, “The era of big government is over.” House and Senate Republicans jumped up and applauded, and newspapers around the country used the claim in their headlines. Less noticed was Clinton’s next sentence: “But we cannot go back to a time when our citizens were left to themselves” as well as his assertion in 1998 that “Our mission has been to save government from its own excesses so that it can be a progressive force.”

Whatever his intentions, Nelson Lichtenstein and Judith Stein assert in their new book, A Fabulous Failure: The Clinton Presidency and the Transformation of American Capitalism, that “the era of big government is over,” was evidenced by the accommodations the Clinton administration made to global corporate capitalism.

Lichtenstein, a research professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the author of A Century of American Labor, and the late Judith Stein, a former professor of history at the Graduate Center, City University of New York, and the author of Pivotal Decade: How the United States Traded Factories For Finance in the Seventies, provide an extraordinarily detailed — and often compelling — analysis of Clinton’s domestic policies from an unabashedly progressive perspective. Many of those policies, according to the authors, contributed to growing inequality, recurring financial crises, and the rise of right-wing populism in the United States.

Lichtenstein and Stein demonstrate that Clinton, heavily influenced by Robert Rubin, chair of the National Economic Council and then-Secretary of the Treasury, supported legislation designed to unleash market forces in the U.S. economy. Although deficit reduction erased his promise of a middle-class tax cut and investments in education, infrastructure, and the environment, Clinton boasted at the end of the ‘90s that the budget cuts narrowly passed by Congress in 1993 freed up about $1 trillion for private sector investment.

 

Former US president Bill Clinton delivers a speech in front of government headquarters in Tirana on July 3, 2023, during a ceremony held in his honor as part of his first official visit to Albania.ADNAN BECI/AFP via Getty Images

The president, the authors suggest, never really addressed the extent to which his emphasis on deficits became a politically potent symbol of the federal government’s inability to manage its own affairs. Or the “paradox” identified by Robert Kuttner, editor of The American Prospect: “You don’t get deficit reduction by targeting deficit reduction. You achieve it — over time — by raising the rate of growth and fixing the health system” to slow inflation, a reform Clinton failed to get through Congress. Moreover, throughout (and beyond) the ‘90s, more money poured into speculative bubbles than productive domestic investment.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Lichtenstein and Stein claim, was a “political blunder of the first order” that split the Democratic Party, alienated working-class voters, and contributed to the defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016. Opposed by labor unions, consumer advocates, and environmentalists, NAFTA lacked enforcement mechanisms to ensure that Mexico narrow the eight-to-one wage differential north and south of the Rio Grande or improve working conditions. NAFTA produced downward pressure on the salaries of U.S. workers; devastated textile and apparel industries in the South (accelerating GOP dominance in the region); increased investment of U.S. corporations in Mexico; and, by putting farmers in direct competition with agribusiness enterprises in the U.S. and Canada, helped make Mexico the largest contributor to international labor migration in the world between 2000 and 2005.

Meanwhile, although the authors acknowledge that NAFTA and cheap labor in foreign factories in Asia drove down the prices of imported consumer goods, saving each American family thousands of dollars, they estimate that China’s admission to the World Trade Organization led to losses of more than 1.5 million manufacturing jobs in the United States, with Wal-Mart responsible for nearly 200,000 of them.

And the Clinton administration made capital mobility throughout the globe a core priority. The repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall law (which mandated the separation of traditional commercial banking and more risky investment operations), passage of the Telecommunications Act, and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (which exempted the OTC derivatives markets from all federal regulation), the authors indicate, contributed to merger mania, industry oligopoly, and huge, volatile capital flows.

Specialists in labor history, Lichtenstein and Stein also take Clinton to task for what they perceive as his indifference to trade unions. The president, they indicate, did not press very hard for the National Labor Relations Board to increase protection for union organizing and bargaining rights — or for congressional legislation prohibiting companies from breaking strikes by bringing in replacement workers. And, they say, Clinton was willing to play down violations of human rights abroad — including forced labor, child labor, and sweatshop conditions — because threatening to limit access to American markets might imperil lucrative supply chains and trade agreements with “rogue” nations.

A salutary impact of the election of Donald Trump in 2016, Lichtenstein and Stein conclude, is that it pushed the Democratic Party to the left. In 2020, President Biden embraced that shift, with a big assist from COVID-19 and narrow majorities in the House and Senate, by pushing through a progressive agenda, culminating in the American Rescue Plan and Build Back Better.

That said, A Fabulous Failure ends on a cautionary note: The social forces necessary to implement a comprehensive and durable legislative strategy to build an industrial base, enhance public investment, reduce inequality, and combat climate change, are not now in place. These days, the United States needs “their transformational energy” more than ever.

Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies at Cornell University.

https://themessenger.com/opinion/new-progressive-account-of-clinton-presidency-finds-him-responsible-for-many-of-todays-ills

 

As I’ve said many times before the “centrists” Democrats and LPCs typified by the Clintons, Chretien-Martin, Michael Ignatieff etc were economic conservatives who only materially differed from Republicans and conservatives on social issues such as gay rights and abortion, etc. 

Edited September 3, 2023 by BeaverFever

[Michael Hardner]

I can't tell if the synopsis of trade deals is your take on the book or their take on the deal.

I get the sense that someone thinks that the decimation of manufacturing jobs was an unintended result but it wasn't.  With those salaries so far above world market levels there wasn't much further that manufacturing could go.  The idea is to give up one sector for huge growth in others and new sectors too as well as lower prices and higher profits. 

That part worked beautifully.

What didn't work was relying on trickle down economics to manage the winfall.

And I don't believe that populism came out of a working class revolt against the Clintons as a result of this.  Poor people still vote Democrat it seems.

A lot of it is right, and also no mention of Clinton's welfare cuts or Hillary's Walmart board membership. Yeah incredible because they're so communist haha...

[Dougie93]

I would suggest that this global economic model begins with Richard Nixon

when he abandoned the Breton Woods gold standard for fiat currency

as once you go there the money supply must increase exponentially

this then imposes terms upon Washington by the time you get the Bill Clinton

it is in essence a hollowing out from within

so by the time you get to the 1990s, you are forced to prop up the debt

you are forced to find new methods of doing so therein

casting Glass Stegal overboard was one of those methods

because in the fiat currency environment, every bank becomes an investment bank

[herbie]

Unfortunately 'globalism' is another buzzword to pull the wool over the disgruntled. And trade agreements are now carved in stone and irreversible.

Trying to pin blame is pointless, and trying to pin it on Clinton is utter GOP propaganda. The year before NAFTA the outboard motor I bought was $1699 here, $1399 in Vancouver and $399 at Costco in the USA. Don't give me the 33% discount on the dollar meant prices were quadruple. Or that workers didn't benefit at all.
The 27" colour TV we bought in 1989 was $1100. Today I can get a huge 65" Smart, flatscreen HDTV for $700, a 32" for as little as $139. On a pension about what I made back then, that massive box with the tiny screen was worth about $6000 in today dollars. Same with all sorts of other consumer goods.

It's the schizoid nationalism that begs you to buy American-buy Canadian at the same time as invest in Company X that got massive boosts in profits & tax reductions to offshore all production. And yes it's the chickenshit "don't upset the corporations cuz that's communism" that's led to shit like Obamacare, continued 25% chicken tax on small trucks, the fact that USA refusal to adopt metric is hidden protectionism.
That the refusal to think through trade policies before adopting them was the root cause. Hell the low wage countries adopted automation and productivity programs almost immediately, and we all paid the price here for corporate foot-dragging and lack of long term vision. And still sing the schizoid 'buy from the companies that screw you' or you're disloyal song.

And the political bullshit is insufferable. After all the Trump rhetoric and promise, every new model Ford, GM, Stellantis model offering is built in Mexico. Even Elon has joined in building Teslas in China and shipping them back here. Multi-billion dollar subsidies just so Canada can keep it's finger in the pie.

Maddening!

 

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

I would suggest that this global economic model begins with Richard Nixon

when he abandoned the Breton Woods gold standard for fiat

I think what really began with Nixon was to lay the foundation for the respectability dictators now enjoy and that puts the economy ahead of human been rights.

'Oh, but you lefties love being told what to do' ?

The Democrats, like Liberals, are only lefties when they campaign for office.

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I think what really began with Nixon was to lay the foundation for the respectability dictators now enjoy and that puts the economy ahead of human been rights.

'Oh, but you lefties love being told what to do' ?

The Democrats, like Liberals, are only lefties when they campaign for office.

coming off the Breton Woods gold standard was rather a defensive protectionist measure for America

the postwar boom was spent, competition had returned to the market

thus America, as the Global Hegemon, sought a new advantage

and that was to leverage access to the American markets as the new gokd

the flight to quality was to America, so King Dollar became the safe haven without being pegged to gold

the Federal Reserve no longer had to exchange gold for dollars at the overnight window

because the global markets would accept US Dollars as being better than gold

so this was America's new advantage in the wake of the  postwar boom ending

[August1991]

7 hours ago, herbie said:

Unfortunately 'globalism' is another buzzword to pull the wool over the disgruntled. And trade agreements are now carved in stone and irreversible.

Trying to pin blame is pointless, and trying to pin it on Clinton is utter GOP propaganda. The year before NAFTA the outboard motor I bought was $1699 here, $1399 in Vancouver and $399 at Costco in the USA. Don't give me the 33% discount on the dollar meant prices were quadruple. Or that workers didn't benefit at all.
The 27" colour TV we bought in 1989 was $1100. Today I can get a huge 65" Smart, flatscreen HDTV for $700, a 32" for as little as $139. On a pension about what I made back then, that massive box with the tiny screen was worth about $6000 in today dollars. Same with all sorts of other consumer goods.

...

 

Herbie, I agree.

[August1991]

13 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

A New Progressive Account of Clinton Presidency Finds Him Responsible for Many of Today’s Ills

In his 1996 State of the Union Address, President Bill Clinton declared, “The era of big government is over.”

Less noticed was Clinton’s next sentence: “But we cannot go back to a time when our citizens were left to themselves”

.... as well as his assertion in 1998 that “Our mission has been to save government from its own excesses so that it can be a progressive force.”

 

I may be Canadian but call me a Clinton American.

[August1991]

Thinking back, Bill Clinton was well-intentioned but naive (like George McGovern).

The 1990s were a critical period in recent world history. This decade or so after 1989.

Bush Snr and Clinton did naively well. Bush Jnr less so.

=====

Reagan won. The Soviet Union is no more. Communism is on the trash heap of history.

Since 1991, we live in a different world. 

[Rebound]

14 hours ago, August1991 said:

Thinking back, Bill Clinton was well-intentioned but naive (like George McGovern).

The 1990s were a critical period in recent world history. This decade or so after 1989.

Bush Snr and Clinton did naively well. Bush Jnr less so.

=====

Reagan won. The Soviet Union is no more. Communism is on the trash heap of history.

Since 1991, we live in a different world. 

Soviet communism did not fall because of Ronald Reagan. 

[reason10]

On 9/3/2023 at 11:07 AM, Michael Hardner said:

I can't tell if the synopsis of trade deals is your take on the book or their take on the deal.

I get the sense that someone thinks that the decimation of manufacturing jobs was an unintended result but it wasn't.  With those salaries so far above world market levels there wasn't much further that manufacturing could go.  The idea is to give up one sector for huge growth in others and new sectors too as well as lower prices and higher profits. 

That part worked beautifully.

What didn't work was relying on trickle down economics to manage the winfall.

And I don't believe that populism came out of a working class revolt against the Clintons as a result of this.  Poor people still vote Democrat it seems.

A lot of it is right, and also no mention of Clinton's welfare cuts or Hillary's Walmart board membership. Yeah incredible because they're so communist haha...

The only trickle down economics is the Democrat WELFARE STATE.

Jobs went overseas because major corporations had accountants who decided it was cheaper to locate a factory in the FAR FUGGING EAST than it was to pay DemoNazi taxes here in the States.

LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP actually overturned that process by cutting corporate taxes. He BROUGHT BACK those high paying manufacturing jobs.

And he was impeached for it.

Seig Heil.

[reason10]

On 9/3/2023 at 12:43 PM, Dougie93 said:

I would suggest that this global economic model begins with Richard Nixon

when he abandoned the Breton Woods gold standard for fiat currency

as once you go there the money supply must increase exponentially

this then imposes terms upon Washington by the time you get the Bill Clinton

it is in essence a hollowing out from within

so by the time you get to the 1990s, you are forced to prop up the debt

you are forced to find new methods of doing so therein

casting Glass Stegal overboard was one of those methods

because in the fiat currency environment, every bank becomes an investment bank

The OPEC states tried to warn Nixon about Bretton Woods.

(People today STILL have no idea just how disastrous that plan was.)

Oil is traded on US Dollars, because the US Dollar is the world's reserve currency. It's the reason why Americans aren't paying $15 a gallon for gasoline, like northern European countries are doing.

Getting out of Bretton Woods caused irreparable damage to the stability of the US Dollar, and we got the oil spikes of the early Seventies. And people today STILL don't get that.

14 hours ago, August1991 said:

I may be Canadian but call me a Clinton American.

Does that mean you consider yourself to be a liar, a fraud, and a serial rapist?

KKKlinton was all of those things, as well as one of the four WORST presidents in history. (the other three being Carter, Obama and Biden.)(

[Moonlight Graham]

Don't blame Reagan and Thatcher at all...or Brian Mulroney.  It's all Clinton's fault!

They all sucked on the shlong of corporate America and sodomized the American (and Canadian) worker.

Squabble over your favorite party while they all sodomize you.  It's like fighting over the colour of the spiked dildo they shove up your rump.

I hope you all have enjoyed my analogies.

[herbie]

Get rid of benefits like welfare and raise taxes on the poor at the same time as ensuring their right to own firearms.... duh....

claiming Biden is a corrupt dictator when you really want is a Czar Nicholas to make things better....

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  TLDR for a MAGA Floridan I guess.

[BeaverFever]

18 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Don't blame Reagan and Thatcher at all...or Brian Mulroney.  It's all Clinton's fault!

They all sucked on the shlong of corporate America and sodomized the American (and Canadian) worker.

Squabble over your favorite party while they all sodomize you.  It's like fighting over the colour of the spiked dildo they shove up your rump.

I hope you all have enjoyed my analogies.

Reagan and Thatcher were the first to endorse neoliberalism and “cross the line” with new policies. But many of those ideas take time to bear fruit and become accepted by mainstream “centrists”   It was Clinton who ultimately gave these policies “centrist” legitimacy in the public sphere and who enacted and presided over many of the outsourcing/globalization: neoliberal trends that most directly resulted in the current state of affairs 

[BeaverFever]

On 9/3/2023 at 11:07 AM, Michael Hardner said:

 

I can't tell if the synopsis of trade deals is your take on the book or their take on the deal.

 

Everything above the hyperlink to the article in the OP is the from the article’s synopsis of the book. . Everything below the hyperlink is my personal commentary which was meant to be a separate post in this thread but now this forum automatically merges back to back posts 

[reason10]

23 hours ago, herbie said:

Get rid of benefits like welfare and raise taxes on the poor at the same time as ensuring their right to own firearms.... duh....

claiming Biden is a corrupt dictator when you really want is a Czar Nicholas to make things better....

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  TLDR for a MAGA Floridan I guess.

Unelected Biden has already raised taxes on the poor and is trying to take a shit on the Second Amendment.

Forget Tsar Nicholas. We just want the man who got the most votes in the 2020 election: LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP.

[August1991]

On 9/4/2023 at 2:03 PM, Rebound said:

Soviet communism did not fall because of Ronald Reagan. 

I think that everyone can agree that Soviet communism failed. Did it fail because of Reagan? 

Reagan was elected in 1980.

====

1980s?  I remember these times. Reagan and Thatcher. Brezhnev, Andropov and then Gorbatchev.

I travelled in Europe then - crossing the Iron Curtain often.

 

[August1991]

On 9/4/2023 at 2:14 PM, reason10 said:

The only trickle down economics is the Democrat WELFARE STATE.

....

Disagree.

Democrats? Republicans?

The world is far better because you Americans can choose.

 

 

[Rebound]

7 hours ago, August1991 said:

I think that everyone can agree that Soviet communism failed. Did it fail because of Reagan? 

Reagan was elected in 1980.

====

1980s?  I remember these times. Reagan and Thatcher. Brezhnev, Andropov and then Gorbatchev.

I travelled in Europe then - crossing the Iron Curtain often.

 

Then perhaps you remember Glasnost, which was Gorbachov's stated policy of liberating Eastern Europe. Funny how he said he'd do it, and then he did it.

 

Consider the ridiculousness of the Republican narrative: When dock workers in Poland went on strike, Russia didn't have the money to send soldiers in to stop them, and the Soviet government failed because of bankruptcy. Really? Russia couldn't send a few thousand soldiers to stop striking dock workers if they wanted? Of course they could. Easily. Gorbachov chose not to.

Fast-forward to 2023, the US has trillions of dollars of debt... yet we aren't bankrupt. In fact, governments do not fail because of bankruptcy. Sure, leaders get replaced all the time, but the entire government won't simply disintegrate. 

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, Rebound said:

In fact, governments do not fail because of bankruptcy. 

Bankruptcy is a specific term, so what if we asked if governments fail because of economic conditions? Such as Weimar Germany?

The other thing I want to say is that Soviet communism collapsed, but so did American capitalism of the 1920s, and so did the New deal, and so did neoliberalism.  Humans tend to try things and then to improve on things that have problems.

If you compare the governments of today with those of 50 or 60 years ago across the globe, you'll see some similarities including Less direct state ownership, more personal Liberty but at the same time more monitoring and a different kind of control. Consumer culture has grown by leaps and bounds, and the bi- polar Global political structure has broken down.

Look at china, russia, the us and the west.

We are evolving towards a kind of centralist consensus.

[Rebound]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Bankruptcy is a specific term, so what if we asked if governments fail because of economic conditions? Such as Weimar Germany?

The other thing I want to say is that Soviet communism collapsed, but so did American capitalism of the 1920s, and so did the New deal, and so did neoliberalism.  Humans tend to try things and then to improve on things that have problems.

If you compare the governments of today with those of 50 or 60 years ago across the globe, you'll see some similarities including Less direct state ownership, more personal Liberty but at the same time more monitoring and a different kind of control. Consumer culture has grown by leaps and bounds, and the bi- polar Global political structure has broken down.

Look at china, russia, the us and the west.

We are evolving towards a kind of centralist consensus.

Poor economic conditions can cause voters to elect different leaders and they can cause coups or even civilian insurrections. BUT a government won't simply vanish because of poor economic conditions. 

Let me give you two examples:

In the 1980's, the USSR's economy suffered difficulties. There were long lines for food. Things weren't great.

In the 1940's, the USSR was reduced to rubble by Hitler and 30 million Soviet citizens were killed. Entire cities were completely pulverized and farmland was burned across Ukraine and Russia. 

And the Republicans pitch this nonsense story that Stalin was able to keep throwing soldiers into the fight, but Gorbachev somehow could not. That's absolutely nonsense. Gorbachev refused to stop these rebellions because he promised that they could occur, and said that they would. 

[Nationalist]

On 9/4/2023 at 5:19 PM, herbie said:

Get rid of benefits like welfare and raise taxes on the poor at the same time as ensuring their right to own firearms.... duh....

claiming Biden is a corrupt dictator when you really want is a Czar Nicholas to make things better....

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  TLDR for a MAGA Floridan I guess.

And this is the main and only real argument the Libbies have. The insane accusation that the Make America Great Again is a dictatorial movement. This fear tactic is, of course, nonsense. 

They're done. Toast. They have played their globalist cards and produced mud. It's over.

[Rebound]

44 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

And this is the main and only real argument the Libbies have. The insane accusation that the Make America Great Again is a dictatorial movement. This fear tactic is, of course, nonsense. 

They're done. Toast. They have played their globalist cards and produced mud. It's over.

Here’s the deal:

If someone loses an election and remains in power through the use of force or illegal means, that person is a dictator.  And that is precisely what Donald Trump attempted.  
 

So you’re just another anti-America fascist, because you’re part of the conspiracy to lie over and over and over that the election was stolen and January 6 was peaceful.  

Edited September 9, 2023 by Rebound

[Nationalist]

31 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Here’s the deal:

If someone loses an election and remains in power through the use of force or illegal means, that person is a dictator.  And that is precisely what Donald Trump attempted.  
 

So you’re just another anti-America fascist, because you’re part of the conspiracy to lie over and over and over that the election was stolen and January 6 was peaceful.  

Speaking of anti American...it's interesting that the election time cover-up of Hunter Bidens laptop doesn't bother you.

But as I've said, you death cultists only know what you're told by your insane masters.

But the majority of folks now see your lies clearly. 

You're death-cult is exposed.