Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
You mean the hundred thousand Iraqis Clinton killed with his sanctions? Or do those don't count because they were killed by someone with a D after his name? Or what about the couple of hundred thousand Yugoslavs that Albright got killed when she torpedoed the chances for a peaceful dissolution of Yugoslavia?

Are you really so delusional that you believe the Democrats don't start colonial wars for fun and profit?

If you want Democrats to start winning elections, you need to convince them to stop doing stupid shit like that.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Nov 20th, 2011 at 08:36:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Odd how "leftists" resort to right wing stories so quickly. If you want to equate Clinton's sanctions with Bush's shock-and-awe or pretend that Albright caused the Serbian campaign of genocide, go ahead, but don't expect me to applaud.

Obviously, Clinton's policies were often terrible, but Bush's were much worse and, furthermore, increased the structural power of the far right - worldwide.

by rootless2 on Sun Nov 20th, 2011 at 08:43:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You were the one counting bodies.

I suppose you might postulate an ethical difference between starving someone to death and giving him a bullet to the back of the head. I suspect that the dead guy would beg to differ.

Obviously Bush's policies were worse than Clinton's. Just as Clinton's were worse than Reagan's. Because that's what you get when you make triangulation the principal plank of your political strategy, and the left doesn't force you to include them in your triangulations.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Nov 20th, 2011 at 08:48:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The theory of "the left" that it can "force you to include them in your triangulations" by sitting out elections and sulking (or equivalently voting for symbolic parties) is the theory under debate.

In that Clinton was worse than Reagan (which is false, but what the heck), it was because Reagan succeeded in bringing about structural changes that increased the power of the financial and military sectors and assisted in organization of the far rights political apparatus. When one permits an unsatisfactory social democrat (like Carter) to be replaced by the right wing, the effects of this change do not disappear at election boundaries. Clinton had to operate in the world Reagan had made, just as Obama has to operate in the world Bush made - and just as some possible future less right wing government in Spain will have to operate in the world the PP makes.  The right keeps focused on power - putting in right wing judges in one step, building up a right wing bank regulator in another and so on. The left, fixated on its own disappointment, gives a multi-year opening to install Franco-ist officials in the bureaucracy to the right because the PPOE acted like nearly all social democratic parties act under pressure.

by rootless2 on Sun Nov 20th, 2011 at 08:58:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You sure as Hell don't force anybody to include you in their triangulations by voting for them no matter what they do while in office.

And I'll remind you that the most important institutional entrenchment of right-wing economic policy in Spain since Franco's death happened two months ago, under a PSOE government.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Nov 20th, 2011 at 09:05:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh come on. Voting is an exercise of political power, not a love affair. Rublaca promises to tax banks and protect the health care system and says that the indignants have a point. Yet that's "too late" for the disappointed lovers of the fake left.
by rootless2 on Sun Nov 20th, 2011 at 09:13:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
PSOE promised that before the last election too, and what they delivered was a constitutional change which will lock in right-wing economic policies for the foreseeable future.

If you believe that there is any structural, institutional gain from voting PSOE over PP, then you're kidding yourself. There is structural, institutional gain in voting for the post-communists. But prissy whiners like you who insist that anybody who isn't voting PSOE is effectively supporting the PP are not helping to get that point across.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Nov 20th, 2011 at 09:19:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Starts in 2020,

Unlike Germany, Spain will not specify the size of the deficit cap in the constitution. According to the draft, the new clause will merely say a cap must be set by either the European Union or, in its absence, the Spanish parliament. The limit could also be broken at times of recession or national crisis.

just marketing pr that means nothing.

by rootless2 on Sun Nov 20th, 2011 at 10:49:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Would you mind sourcing your quotes?

This is from a diary of mine on the topic:

There's only one provision of the proposed New Article 135 (in Spanish) which will have immediate effect:
Los créditos para satisfacer los intereses y el capital de la deuda pública de las Administraciones se entenderán siempre incluidos en el estado de gastos de sus presupuestos y su pago gozará de prioridad absoluta. Estos créditos no podrán ser objeto de enmienda o modificación, mientras se ajusten a las condiciones de la Ley de emisión.
Credits to service interest and principal on the public debt of the various Administrations will be understood to be part of the expense account of their budgets, and their payment will have absolute priority. These credits won't be subject to amendment or modification, as long as they keep to the conditions of the law by which they were issued.
Update [2011-8-30 3:59:57 by Migeru]: The emphasised text is what's being added by the amendment.
The only provision with immediate effect is that paying the national debt takes priority over health care, education, unemployment insurance, national defence, etc, etc.

On top of this, the Socialis presidential candidate came out and tried to sell this to the public with the argument that it was "a pro-European reform". As if we're stupid.

To err is of course human. But to mess things up spectacularly, we need an elite — Yanis Varoufakis

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Nov 20th, 2011 at 01:12:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's funny that there is a similar amendment in the US constitution, put there to prevent rejoining Confederate states from defaulting on the Union civil war debt.

Here's my quote source

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/aug/26/spain-constitutional-cap-deficit

by rootless2 on Sun Nov 20th, 2011 at 02:00:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This will prevent Spain from defaulting on the Euro wars debt.

To err is of course human. But to mess things up spectacularly, we need an elite — Yanis Varoufakis
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Nov 20th, 2011 at 02:03:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"But prissy whiners like you who insist that anybody who isn't voting PSOE is effectively supporting the PP are not helping to get that point across."

Indeed - because most people who are not voting PSOE are not voting left, they are just not voting, thus assisting PP. Arithmetic is so inconvenient at times.

by rootless2 on Sun Nov 20th, 2011 at 10:52:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Boycotting elections that are essentially undemocratic is also an act of political power.

If you have paid any attention to what was said in the squares of the indignados, you would know that.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Sun Nov 20th, 2011 at 09:23:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is an act of political power - for the right.
They are more interested in actual power, not symbolic gestures. Except symbolic gestures by the left which result in actual power for the right.
by rootless2 on Sun Nov 20th, 2011 at 10:46:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The right already has power, via its ownership of the economy.

You seem to confuse the political process and the right's use of it to arrogate legitimacy of its entrenched power with the actual obtention of power itself.

I would suggest this undermines your analysis completely.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Mon Nov 21st, 2011 at 06:32:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... proven over and over again in their effective engagement in the Republican primary process ~ their willingness to throw the occasional moderate Republican to the wolves in favor of someone toeing the radical reactionary lines of the moment allows them to exercise far more effective discipline over their elected representatives than the approach of the left, not getting started until too late to affect the make-up of the candidates on offer and then buying heavily into the blinkered media hyperfocus on Presidential campaigning.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Nov 20th, 2011 at 11:56:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series