But who can I vote for to oppose the TPP, TISA, TTIP and the rest of that transnational “investor rights” alphabet soup?
Some politicians oppose it. Bernie Sanders is fiercely against the TPP. Given that this is a "free trade" vs. class inequality fight, you're likely going to find more Democrats that oppose it than Republicans.
Which one‘s going to disband the CIA?
That's ludicrous. Every country needs a spy agency.
The TSA?
Politicians gotta fly planes just like the rest of us. There are some that are fed up with it. John Mica's a strong opponent of it, as is Rand Paul. Hell, ask any politician and you'll probably get a negative response on the state of the TSA.
Which one knows that torture and extrajudicial lethal collective punishment are immoral?
That's easy: the Democrats. Neocons instituted this illegal "torture is okay" doctrine, and liberals have been staunchly opposed to it.
Given that this is a "free trade" vs. class inequality fight, you're likely going to find more Democrats that oppose it than Republicans.
Seeing as how you've put quotes around free trade, I take it you're hip to what deceitful cover that is for these treaties. Making it seem as though that nostrum is being weighed against class inequality, though, I find puzzling. Maybe you mean that opposition to fast track and this whole raft of entangling foreign alliances is plain and simple class resentment? I don't know about that. To my mind, the ISDS and living-document business is nothing less than enshrining ‘expected profits’ as the highest purpose of man, and replacing popular government with opaque corporate arbitration. That's not so much a class inequality concern for me, as much as it is the end of our republican form of government. Have I got you wrong on this?
That's ludicrous. Every country needs a spy agency.
Maybe a spy agency. Not every country needs that decades-spanning failure. There may've been some missteps in the establishment, conduct and successes of that outfit. As ludicrous as abolishing it, or the TSA, may sound, it is an example of dogmatic orthodoxy that none of these candidates would even think of challenging. A way in which all of the candidates for the presidency, the only thing for which Americans vote as an entire nation, are exactly the same. Which was more the point than whether either the CIA or the TSA are competent at their jobs. Even though they clearly aren't, and never have been. Unless we reconsider popular ideas of what their jobs are.
Neocons instituted this illegal "torture is okay" doctrine, and liberals have been staunchly opposed to it.
Now, that's absurd. Sure, there are some parts of the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" that are opposed to torture and surgical strikes, but there are parts of the Republican Party that are, as well. Along the great, amoral continuum between the last administration and this one, I daresay you'd be hard pressed to show pragmatic differences between one party in power and the other.
There are people that still believe the accused are entitled to a trial, and that one subpoena will not suffice for every person everywhere, but they're not on one side of one political party or the other. They're on one side of worshipping authority and the existing power structure or the other.
For one example of this, if this administration's long-suffering aspiration for closing Gitmo ever gets anywhere, those prisoners just get moved from a hole faraway to a hole closer by, as long as the forever war lasts. The candidate I wish I could choose might have an inkling that they should either be tried, or at least executed, but not what's being done now, which I hesitate to describe because it's anathema to any sort of justice.
Remember the Salem witch trials? Back when we used to give people trials? We were so much more decent then.
Some politicians oppose it. Bernie Sanders is fiercely against the TPP. Given that this is a "free trade" vs. class inequality fight, you're likely going to find more Democrats that oppose it than Republicans.
That's ludicrous. Every country needs a spy agency.
Politicians gotta fly planes just like the rest of us. There are some that are fed up with it. John Mica's a strong opponent of it, as is Rand Paul. Hell, ask any politician and you'll probably get a negative response on the state of the TSA.
That's easy: the Democrats. Neocons instituted this illegal "torture is okay" doctrine, and liberals have been staunchly opposed to it.
Seeing as how you've put quotes around free trade, I take it you're hip to what deceitful cover that is for these treaties. Making it seem as though that nostrum is being weighed against class inequality, though, I find puzzling. Maybe you mean that opposition to fast track and this whole raft of entangling foreign alliances is plain and simple class resentment? I don't know about that. To my mind, the ISDS and living-document business is nothing less than enshrining ‘expected profits’ as the highest purpose of man, and replacing popular government with opaque corporate arbitration. That's not so much a class inequality concern for me, as much as it is the end of our republican form of government. Have I got you wrong on this?
Maybe a spy agency. Not every country needs that decades-spanning failure. There may've been some missteps in the establishment, conduct and successes of that outfit. As ludicrous as abolishing it, or the TSA, may sound, it is an example of dogmatic orthodoxy that none of these candidates would even think of challenging. A way in which all of the candidates for the presidency, the only thing for which Americans vote as an entire nation, are exactly the same. Which was more the point than whether either the CIA or the TSA are competent at their jobs. Even though they clearly aren't, and never have been. Unless we reconsider popular ideas of what their jobs are.
Now, that's absurd. Sure, there are some parts of the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" that are opposed to torture and surgical strikes, but there are parts of the Republican Party that are, as well. Along the great, amoral continuum between the last administration and this one, I daresay you'd be hard pressed to show pragmatic differences between one party in power and the other.
There are people that still believe the accused are entitled to a trial, and that one subpoena will not suffice for every person everywhere, but they're not on one side of one political party or the other. They're on one side of worshipping authority and the existing power structure or the other.
For one example of this, if this administration's long-suffering aspiration for closing Gitmo ever gets anywhere, those prisoners just get moved from a hole faraway to a hole closer by, as long as the forever war lasts. The candidate I wish I could choose might have an inkling that they should either be tried, or at least executed, but not what's being done now, which I hesitate to describe because it's anathema to any sort of justice.
Remember the Salem witch trials? Back when we used to give people trials? We were so much more decent then.