And "moderates," no less! They're supposed to "play ball" (the rich get richer, the poor get looted) and not be "shrill" and "radical" and invite "chaos" like the "far" Left!
Lol!
Are they going to start calling them the reddish-pinkish Left (as opposed to the light bluish Left) for not being so "moderate" after all but sticking with the, um, Left-Left (the rosy-colored Left, which came in a strong second (almost equal) to the light bluish Left)?
Really, the BBC can sometimes be as bad as the Wall Street Urinal. (They are very bad on the Latin America, too, where most countries have rejected "austerity"--the BBC not reliable any more at all, on LatAm--after getting Blairited (attacked, downsized, corporatized) over the Iraq War.) (The issue in LatAm is also oil.)
This is not quite as bad as the Urinal and the Slimes, but it's close. The article seems to say that, if only...IF ONLY...the light bluish Left would jettison a third of the voters (those to the Left of the light bluish "moderates"
and join the Right (true blue), all would be well. Then they could all be lavender together as indentured servants of the 1%! "Chaos" would be averted (i.e., the rich won't suffer).
Credit to the BBC for admitting that Syriza (rosy-colored Left) came in second and that New Democracy (light bluish Left) got 50 extra seats merely for coming in first. The formerly bad, pro-"austerity" Left and the Good Left (the "reds" are equivalent in support, in other words; they split most of the votes between them and SHOULD rule the country on an ANTI-"austerity" platform, no matter how hysterical the rich become, cuz most of the people in the country think "austerity" sucks.
It's called democracy! And guess what? The Greeks invented it!
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read