Who's Setting The Agenda For The Democratic Party?

It’s a bit of a Schrodinger’s cat, that one. I believe the only known facts are that some of the emails are real… but the whole thing is fishy, especially with Guiliani involved, and the data being tampered with after the initial NYP story. It being “real” is still a bit of a stretch. If you want to accuse my skepticism as believing a conspiracy theory, I’m fine with that considering it dwarfs in comparison the number of conspiracy theories y’all (c) believe. There’s like almost no actions that come from the left that y’all take at face value… its always evidence of some greater nefarious conspiracy.

I have no idea, that was like 3 years ago.

The question was about collusion, not a meeting. Perhaps you did not read the entire report.


I remember that too…say libs will you ever apologize for that?


He reads what he selectively chooses to.


I have been stating for15 years a shift away from a global struggle between the communist and capitalist worldviews to a new struggle between a smothering global transnational worldview and a national sovereignty and independence worldview. Democrats are fighting a losing battle to save globalism which they see as finally being run by a Fabian socialist elite intelligentia. Citizens from all demographics are seeing that nationalist freedom movements provide hope of restoring their independence and canceled cultures back, which MAGA is tapping into.

1 Like

collusion equals meeting.

getting dirt on hillary.

do you not remember?

it was in all the news stories.



1 Like

VD Hansen points this out well in The Dying Citizen which I am reading now.

Yeah, that’s huge.

In one way, it is a shift—especially the strong reemergence of nationalism. At the same time, it’s consistent with the long-standing rightwing fear of one-world government, a knowledge economy dominated by the technical and professional elite, and other disquieting aspects of modernity.

In a way, American conservatives are becoming more like the traditional European right, who’ve always been suspicious of global capitalism and those cosmopolitan elites.

Oh how they mocked Forgotten Man.



Dems have hooked their cart to the academic/radical jack ass.

They have followed the Plan to the point where it turned. And degraded academia to the point that it isn’t honest anymore.

But when was it honest? And when was there a time in the last 70 years that the American right didn’t loathe academia?

For example, William Buckley’s first book was God and Man at Yale(1951) in which he railed against the collectivism, secularism, and ani-individualism that were destroying higher ed.

1 Like

There are, in fact, right-wing academics. But right wing academics don’t generally believe themselves superior to non-academics, nor do they believe only academics should direct the political courses of nations.

If “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom” God-denying academics are not even of home base in terms of wisdom, and such Godless forms of intellectualism deserve loathing by the theistic right. But God-fearing intellectuals do exist, and such intellectualism at least has a solid foundation upon which to build wisely.

1 Like

I don’t agree with your generalization about academics re: “superiority.” That attitude (to the degree it exists at all) cuts across party and ideology. Not going to argue it because it’s a waste of time.

But your point about accepting God as a first premise—I think that does speak to the fundamental antipathy between conservatism and the university. It goes back centuries—or millennia.

Socrates was put on trial (and executed) for two things: one of them was impiety (“asebeia”) against the gods. So we’re in familiar territory.

1 Like


Good move.

Your academics have religion.

1 Like

Here’s the unsupported, super-broad stereotype that I was referring to:

There are, in fact, right-wing academics. But right wing academics don’t generally believe themselves superior to non-academics, nor do they believe only academics should direct the political courses of nations.

No appreciable number of academics in the US seriously believe that “only academics should direct the political courses of nations.”

As for the implied distinction in that generalization, you’re welcome to prove that I am wrong rather than just saying it.

While I don’t work in academia, I’ve known academics from most parts of the spectrum—Opus Dei conservatives, gun-toting libertarians, do-gooder liberals, leftist cranks, democratic socialists, apolitical individuals, etc. So my position is: there are plenty of blowhards, snobs, and smug douchebags among all the colors of the political rainbow (and keep in mind the number of fields, specialties. and practices that term represents). That’s true of the PhDs at Berkley as it is for the ones at High Point or the ones filing the ranks of rightwing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation.

You might be right, maybe it just seems that way because the crit/progs are the loudest.

1 Like

■■■■■ This ended up in the wrong thread. Sorry.