How is my question a "liar = liar"? It was a QUESTION and you, apparently are afraid of the answers and are attacking-upset.
Does Warren support privatization? Prisons to healthcare?Does Warren support austerity? Guns OR butter?How about deregulation?Free trade? Demand-side economics or supply-side?
Communicate with your words, not your fears and hate and ignorance of candidate positions.
Move left with the public, not right into Neoliberal nonsense where we lose. Neoliberal policies are traditionally part and parcel of Republican policy. Neoliberal policy is NOT New Deal Democratic policy... just the opposite.
"Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as PRIVATIZATION, AUSTERITY, DEREGULATION, FREE TRADE AND REDUCTIONS IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society."
Kansas is absolute proof that neoliberalism is a failure. I'm concerned that you might also be confused by the actual meaning of "liberal" - and default to using it as a slur, as do Republicans.
"Economic liberalism is an economic system organized on individual lines, which means the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by individuals or households rather than by collective institutions or organizations."
Yes, but I believe they wouldn't like to have it generally accepted that this is what they do. So, you think they're trying to advance a certain candidate, and it's not just general misogyny? And you don't think the other good papers do this? I'm really interested to know.
Libel law doesn't work that way in the first place. The NYT would have to be publishing defamatory lies, while knowing they were lies. Also, the threshold for libel is much higher for public figures than for private individuals. A public figure has actively sought the spotlight, a position of prominence that may reasonably attract both praise and criticism. What the Times is doing is despicable, but not libelous.
I know. I meant, this is an easily recognized phenomenon, so why can't the paper be discouraged from writing in this way, just like they're discouraged on Wall St.
And why can't the Times be asked to turn up those voters they talked to? Then the paper can be asked to prove the article BEGAN with them, and not an editor deciding it was time to say something cautious on the subject of women in leadership positions.
Go for it. Can't hurt.
How is my question a "liar = liar"? It was a QUESTION and you, apparently are afraid of the answers and are attacking-upset.
Does Warren support privatization? Prisons to healthcare?Does Warren support austerity? Guns OR butter?How about deregulation?Free trade? Demand-side economics or supply-side?
Communicate with your words, not your fears and hate and ignorance of candidate positions.
Move left with the public, not right into Neoliberal nonsense where we lose. Neoliberal policies are traditionally part and parcel of Republican policy. Neoliberal policy is NOT New Deal Democratic policy... just the opposite.
"Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as PRIVATIZATION, AUSTERITY, DEREGULATION, FREE TRADE AND REDUCTIONS IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society."
Kansas is absolute proof that neoliberalism is a failure. I'm concerned that you might also be confused by the actual meaning of "liberal" - and default to using it as a slur, as do Republicans.
"Economic liberalism is an economic system organized on individual lines, which means the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by individuals or households rather than by collective institutions or organizations."
Relax, we have a primary and a long, long way to go. It's too early to start bullying people.
Just trying to find out what that sentence meant.
Yes, but I believe they wouldn't like to have it generally accepted that this is what they do. So, you think they're trying to advance a certain candidate, and it's not just general misogyny? And you don't think the other good papers do this? I'm really interested to know.
A scary point.
Libel law doesn't work that way in the first place. The NYT would have to be publishing defamatory lies, while knowing they were lies. Also, the threshold for libel is much higher for public figures than for private individuals. A public figure has actively sought the spotlight, a position of prominence that may reasonably attract both praise and criticism. What the Times is doing is despicable, but not libelous.
What are you saying? If Warren wins the nomination you will withhold your vote from her in a fit of pique?
Warren has actual ideas.
The media had a 30-year head start smearing Hillary. I don't see the current time window as sufficient to duplicate that feat.
A bias against lying traitors? The horror!
Agreed on the Hillary smear campaign. I just mentioned it above.
I know. I meant, this is an easily recognized phenomenon, so why can't the paper be discouraged from writing in this way, just like they're discouraged on Wall St.
And why can't the Times be asked to turn up those voters they talked to? Then the paper can be asked to prove the article BEGAN with them, and not an editor deciding it was time to say something cautious on the subject of women in leadership positions.
The reason they might let Biden slide in is that Biden will do what they want him to do.
Well we have a president who has language as a second language.