2020 Presidential Election

[Kätzchen]

You might want to re-read my post. I know Thomas is an academic. I brought up his OTHER book, because his other book, The Wrecking Crew, makes salient points about how conservatives rule (hint: it's even in the Wrecking Crew title).

I also said that I did not belabor your point about Thomas' other book because I know he is an relevant academic writer, hence why I used his other book as cited in my academic work.

We have no argument between us. Except possibly this one: I am over badgering of the Clinton clan. I've stated that in many posts I have made over the past few years, and as recently in Anya's Presidential thread. And now, here. AND, I never said Thomas had GOP cronies. I said: "...he's got a bone to pick with GOP Cronies..." (see my prior post, please).



In the future, I will not be engaging with you on the boards. Thanks for the prior dialogue. Take good care and best wishes to you, Martina.

Best,
K.

[Martina]

People might be confused. I deleted a post of mine before I saw this response. I did reread your post, Katzchen, and realized you may have just not been responding directly to my points, which is fine, but it confused me. It doesn't matter.

You might want to re-read my post. I know Thomas is an academic. I brought up his OTHER book, because his other book, The Wrecking Crew, makes salient points about how conservatives rule (hint: it's even in the Wrecking Crew title).

I also said that I did not belabor your point about Thomas' other book because I know he is an relevant academic writer, hence why I used his other book as cited in my academic work.

We have no argument between us. Except possibly this one: I am over badgering of the Clinton clan. I've stated that in many posts I have made over the past few years, and as recently in Anya's Presidential thread. And now, here. AND, I never said Thomas had GOP cronies. I said: "...he's got a bone to pick with GOP Cronies..." (see my prior post, please).



In the future, I will not be engaging with you on the boards. Thanks for the prior dialogue. Take good care and best wishes to you, Martina.

Best,
K.

[C0LLETTE]

Nothing personal and no angry vitriol included about your ability to understand anything at all. However I suggest you read my post again without the name "Hillary" setting off blinding fireworks.

"Please give me one good reason why Hillary was the 2nd least liked major party nominee of all time. When did that happen? Who made that happen? You all really believe there was ever only one nominee less Satanic than Hillary?"

The point was: Was she really " ... the 2nd least liked major party nominee of all time."

You draw a long list of policies you disagree with. Fine. My point is that I'm not sure any of those were the major reasons she was "disliked". I suspect that most of the folks ( except political junkies and cognizanti ) couldn't name 2 of her policies . They just didn't like her: her tone, her attitude, the sound of her voice, her pantsuits...and then they got the mocking blasts from the Right ( and the Left ) that confirmed their dislike.

No question that she has lots of faults but maybe you should Google "sexism".

[C0LLETTE]

Martina:
" You don't like left wing populists? Who the fuck cares? Bernie had to give an extra speech in Iowa today because there were so many people who couldn't get into the venue. There are lots of us, and we don't give a good God damn what you think.

You clearly know next to nothing about US politics."

If you believe the latter, though I'm not sure on what basis, perhaps you should not read my posts or respond to them. That way no one feels attacked or insulted.

[Martina]

I think a lot of Americans know the Dems are owned by corporate interests. Someone said the Republicans serve the top 1% and the Democrats serve the top 10%. Most Conservative Americans have been bamboozled by the Republicans. But the rest of us are not idiots. We know the Dems don't represent our interests.

Your original post assumed people were served issues like Benghazi and the emails and cared about that. No one outside of the Fox News bubble gave a shit about that.

If people did respond to her personality, it was because they picked up on the hypocrisy so in evidence. And the arrogance.

[Martina]

This started with you quoting me and name-calling. Maybe you should take your own advice. I sure as hell would not be debating you without that post where you quoted me and called people who disliked Hillary "cowering wimps"


Martina:
" You don't like left wing populists? Who the fuck cares? Bernie had to give an extra speech in Iowa today because there were so many people who couldn't get into the venue. There are lots of us, and we don't give a good God damn what you think.

You clearly know next to nothing about US politics."

If you believe the latter, though I'm not sure on what basis, perhaps you should not read my posts or respond to them. That way no one feels attacked or insulted.

[C0LLETTE]

You win. Good-bye.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Okay.

I have had it with saint fucking Bernie.

In 2016 huge focus was placed by journalists on Clinton’s past, and focused on the negative only. Clinton was considered the front runner, so Sanders did not get the same focus regarding his voting record and past actions.

Sanders voted 5x against the Brady Bill, he voted to allow firearms on Amtrak trains, he voted to create what is now the “Charleston loophole” that allowed Dylan Roof to purchase the weapon that killed 9 people in a church. He voted repeatedly against holding gun manufacturers liable for the destruction caused by their products; which is strange, because he supported similar protection measures for other industries like food manufacturers.

He relentlessly attacked Clinton over the 1994 Crime Bill, which is partially responsible for the mass incarceration crisis facing our country, when she wasn’t even in Congress at the time, and HE VOTED FOR IT. He voted to tank Senator Ted Kennedy’s compressive immigration bill in 2007.

Until 2009 he said the states should decide same-sex marriage, in the 70’s he wrote a disturbing essay about rape fantasies, there was sexual harassment in his campaign by staffers, which were payed off because he was “too busy” to handle it himself.

I want a President who is not an old white man with a past history that is going to be trashed by the repugnants, while the freaking Democrats stand about wringing their hands and cry “ but Trump is BAD!

I can see Trump being President again, because we cannot find some middle ground, and his Trolls love him.

God bless America

[Martina]

Sanders voted against the 1994 crime bill as a compromise. He and others liberals traded their votes for the Violence Against Women Act and a ten year ban on assault rifles, which were included in it. He fully understood the implications of the bill and before and after voted against others like it. He's a politician. He has made deals.

And it was around the crime bill that Hillary herself introduced use of the term super-predator, based on discredited research, a term used as a weapon against African American youth. She did that to pander to racist white centrists, something the Clintons specialized in.

Bernie Sanders brought the subject of economic inequality into the public discourse when nobody would even use the word. It's an amazing gift, a huge accomplishment in and of itself. He has real integrity and has been consistently pro- worker. There is no one like him in the Senate. No one with his years of experience who has fought for working people. As far as I am concerned, he is a saint, the nearest thing we have in American politics anyway.

I will add that Gillibrand has received an A rating from the NRA, and Bernie has never gotten above a C-. His last pro-gun vote was 2009. So.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Sanders voted against the 1994 crime bill as a compromise. He and others liberals traded their votes for the Violence Against Women Act and a ten year ban on assault rifles, which were included in it. He fully understood the implications of the bill and before and after voted against others like it. He's a politician. He has made deals.

And it was around the crime bill that Hillary herself introduced use of the term super-predator, based on discredited research, a term used as a weapon against African American youth. She did that to pander to the racist white centrists, something the Clintons specialized in.

Bernie Sanders brought the subject of economic inequality into the public discourse when nobody would even use the word. It's an amazing gift, a huge accomplishment in and of itself. He has real integrity and has been consistently pro- worker. There is no one like him in the Senate. No one with his years of experience who has fought for working people. As far as I am concerned, he is a saint, the nearest thing we have in American politics anyway.

You missed my point.

Bernie voted FOR the Crime Bill. Hillary was raked over the coals for the Crime Bill by BERNIE when she wasn’t even in Congress!!

[Martina]

I heard you. But I think you missed my point. She lobbied hard for the bill. She worked to get it passed and in doing so introduced a racist concept into the political discourse. She did worse than vote for it.

Bernie voted for it in order to get the Violence Against Women Act passed. It's in the record. He spoke about opposing the parts of the bill that resulted in mass incarceration. You missed my point.

Bernie voted FOR the Crime Bill. Hillary was raked over the coals for the Crime Bill by BERNIE when she wasn’t even in Congress!!

[MsTinkerbelly]

I heard you. But I think you missed my point. She lobbied hard for the bill. She worked to get it passed and in doing so introduced a racist concept into the political discourse. She did worse than vote for it.

Bernie voted for it in order to get the Violence Against Women Act passed. It's in the record. He spoke about opposing the parts of the bill that resulted in mass incarceration.

Anything to throw shade, eh? Bernie voted for the Crime Bill, regardless of why he did so...He is responsible for his vote which allowed the mass incarceration crisis. Try explaining to the people held a lifetime in prison, how they were less valued than violence against women. Bernie is a political hack, just like all political hacks, and will throw one group under the bus to get what he wants.

A saint he ain’t

[Martina]

Obviously, that was not his finest hour. Nor is his history voting for gun laws. But if that's all you got, it's not much. He has been amazingly consistent. No politician in my lifetime has the record he has for voting in the interest of working people. If he's a political hack, there is not a single long-time member of Congress who is not.

[MsTinkerbelly]

What the hell does that mean?

What it means is...when I give an example of something Bernie did, I get “but Hilary!” I didn’t want Hilary Clinton for President...nor did I want Bernie. I voted for Hilary because she was the candidate, and I thought she could win. To be fair to her, she did win the popular vote...but that and $5 will get you coffee at Starbucks.

I didn’t create this thread, but it would be nice if we could all discuss the candidates without painting any of them as Jesus incarnate, and taking a real look at a candidate that has a chance of beating Trump. To ME, Bernie STILL isn’t that person.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Obviously, that was not his finest hour. Nor is his history voting for gun laws. But if that's all you got, it's not much. He has been amazingly consistent. No politician in my lifetime has the record he has for voting in the interest of working people. If he's a political hack, there is not a single long-time member of Congress who is not.

I’m sure if I took the time (because what I posted was only SKIMMED off one article), there would be pages of things I could post about Bernie. But again, I think you are missing one of my points, and a point I believe Collette tried to make....we have got to stop tearing apart our candidates and find one that the people of the country will actually vote for this time.

If i’m wrong Collette I apologize.

[Martina]

You skimmed all there is. That's the same old pile of shit that Hillary's folk kept scooping up. The guy is decent. If you know no more about him than what you have posted, then calling him a hack and implying he's corrupt is irresponsible.

There is no comparison between the two. Clinton is truly corrupt on a dozen levels. Bernie has lived a life of service with true integrity. Truly, people other than progressives acknowledge both facts. There's no comparison.

[Martina]

What it means is...when I give an example of something Bernie did, I get “but Hilary!” .
You introduced the contrast saying she wasn't even in Congress. Well she did way more harm than any single vote.

[MsTinkerbelly]

You skimmed all there is. That's the same old pile of shit that Hillary's folk kept scooping up. The guy is decent. If you know no more about him than what you have posted, then calling him a hack and implying he's corrupt is irresponsible.

There is no comparison between the two. Clinton is truly corrupt on a dozen levels. Bernie has lived a life of service with true integrity. Truly, people other than progressives acknowledge both facts. There's no comparison.

I. Am. Not. Comparing. Bernie. With. Hilary!!!

What I am doing, is wasting my breath. Have a good day.

[Martina]

Re the thread, I brought in that quote about Clinton to point out the fact that none of the current candidates inspires that kind of reaction and based on the numbers presented, it was kind of encouraging. It was all about the current election until Collette called people who disliked Clinton names and took us down this rabbit hole. She asked why Clinton was disliked and here we are.

[Martina]

I. Am. Not. Comparing. Bernie. With. Hilary!!!

What I am doing, is wasting my breath. Have a good day.

Well in that post, I was. You brought up the crime bill, comparing them.

[kittygrrl]

hating ..is that what Democrats do? is hating, disliking, and vilifying people about their political choices past or present what we are about??? Don't think so. Who in their right mind wants to deal with such judgements? Right or wrong isn't even an issue. Democrats are inclusive not exclusive. We welcome everyone even if i don't dig your opinions or the candidates you support. If you're well informed great, let's talk if you're not let's share ideas. :hangloose:

[kittygrrl]

You skimmed all there is. That's the same old pile of shit that Hillary's folk kept scooping up. The guy is decent. If you know no more about him than what you have posted, then calling him a hack and implying he's corrupt is irresponsible.

There is no comparison between the two. Clinton is truly corrupt on a dozen levels. Bernie has lived a life of service with true integrity. Truly, people other than progressives acknowledge both facts. There's no comparison.
.
why don't you just stop Martina, everyone in here KNOWS how you feel. Beating up people because they don't agree with you is not cool. It turns people off. I don't like anything about Bernie but if you love him, that's just fine with me. Eveyone's opinion counts even if it's diametrically different then my own. I'm just happy when i see someone cares enough to at least have one!!!!!!@@

[C0LLETTE]

Please give me one good reason why Hillary was the 2nd least liked major party nominee of all time. When did that happen? Who made that happen? You all really believe there was ever only one nominee less Satanic than Hillary?

I've never really understood why Democrats and the Left allow Repubs and the Right to define and smear their candidates, accept the smear as legit, and then spend the rest of their political thought defending agst straw man bullshit

Why are so many of you such cowering wimps, so eager to self flagellate and accept every nasty distraction tossed at you.

Ignore the A..Holes. That's what they do because they understand that the public is too ignorant to distinguish fine argument.being constantly on the defensive is just dumb.

Stop going on abt how bad Hillary was. Leave that to the Right.
Want the perfect male candidate, resurrect Jesus.
Want the perfect female candidate, dig up Mother Teresa.
Want the worst possible candidate, let the Right pick one for you and then go on and on about whether they got it right.
What a divisive waste of time and resources.


Decided to repost that so folks could see what I actually did say and not what I didn't say. But I suppose that's neither here nor there at this point.

[Martina]

Yes, "cowering wimps" is such a charming thing to call people. I can see why you'd want to repost it.

[charley]

Please give me one good reason why Hillary was the 2nd least liked major party nominee of all time. When did that happen? Who made that happen? You all really believe there was ever only one nominee less Satanic than Hillary?

I've never really understood why Democrats and the Left allow Repubs and the Right to define and smear their candidates, accept the smear as legit, and then spend the rest of their political thought defending agst straw man bullshit

Why are so many of you such cowering wimps, so eager to self flagellate and accept every nasty distraction tossed at you.

Ignore the A..Holes. That's what they do because they understand that the public is too ignorant to distinguish fine argument.being constantly on the defensive is just dumb.

Stop going on abt how bad Hillary was. Leave that to the Right.
Want the perfect male candidate, resurrect Jesus.
Want the perfect female candidate, dig up Mother Teresa.
Want the worst possible candidate, let the Right pick one for you and then go on and on about whether they got it right.
What a divisive waste of time and resources.

Have boldened and put into red all insults... (also removed my thanks, for having re-read this particular post).

One wonders why the above author is persistently trying to provoke/incite/goad some of the posters? This is definitely not fine dialogue or any kind of dialogue, nor is it helpful.

Actually, I think it is creating division and argument, and there is nothing about that promotes constructive thought, and it is not bringing all of us together.

[C0LLETTE]

Wonder away.

I'm quite sure my meaning is quite clear to most readers who can distinguish my references to Democrats from references to Republicans, references to the Left from references to the Right.

Also they may notice that I am not attacking anyone here personally nor loading my post with personal insult.

I should have known better.
Please do not go after me personally again.

[Martina]

Please give me one good reason why Hillary was the 2nd least liked major party nominee of all time. When did that happen? Who made that happen? You all really believe there was ever only one nominee less Satanic than Hillary?

I've never really understood why Democrats and the Left allow Repubs and the Right to define and smear their candidates, accept the smear as legit, and then spend the rest of their political thought defending agst straw man bullshit

Why are so many of you such cowering wimps, so eager to self flagellate and accept every nasty distraction tossed at you.

Ignore the A..Holes. That's what they do because they understand that the public is too ignorant to distinguish fine argument.being constantly on the defensive is just dumb.

Stop going on abt how bad Hillary was. Leave that to the Right.

So you quote me, ask me direct questions and then continue to use the word "you," referring to folks on the left, to say "why are so many of YOU cowering assholes." Then you continue to use "you," in the imperative, saying stop hating on Hillary. That's pretty fucking direct.

But that's not a personal attack? The entire post is dripping with disdain and disrespect. Just charming. An example to us all.

And before you or someone calls me out for parsing your post, YOU reposted it so we could all see how you expressed yourself.

[charley]

"Trump has made 9,014 false or misleading claims over 773 days"

"As of the end of Sunday, March 3, the 773rd day of his term in office, Trump has reportedly accumulated 9,014 suspicious claims, Washington Post reports, citing The Fact Checker’s database. According to the American newspaper, the US president averaged nearly 5.9 false or misleading claims a day in his first year in office. In his second year, Trump reportedly hit nearly 16.5 a day and so far in 2019, he is averaging nearly 22 claims a day."

https://www.legit.ng/1226115-fact-check-trump-9014-false-misleading-claims-773-days-report.html

All these lies are indicative of the dark cancer spreading over a certain sector of the American population.

Roger Stone's [who is one of Trump's best buds] motto is "never apologize". Trump never apologizes either. Apart from all of Trump's lies and his deliberate ad hominem attacks, one can always tell just how evil the man is (or anyone else who lies) by the way that even after never apologizing, such a bully will not only increase their passive-aggressive rant, but they will also play the victim, even making veiled threats.

[As an aside, I am still aghast at Justin Trudeau's behavior in my post regarding the SNC-Lavalin scandal. A reporter had approached him and asked him whether he would apologize - he ignored the question and left - oh my goodness, the darkness is spreading to Canada as well! smh!]

No one dares ask Trump to apologize. One can always tell just how bad a group/collective is when the majority associated with such an evil man remain silent in the face of all his abuse.

Trump's latest comment lie is horrific: "The Democrats hate Jewish people." He is trying to get the Jewish vote, lol.

The fact is that more than approx. 75% of Jews in the States voted for democrats in the midterms.

From "Morning Joe", in 2016, Jewish voters voted 71% for the Democrats, and in 2018, 79% for the Democrats.

The Far Right and the Neo-Nazis are most likely pleased with Trump, finding validation for their antisemitism. Trump knows this, and has used them and their prejudices to get their support.

Anything to win - just another example of someone who will use any and all means to reach their ends, which is just another example of how evil Trump is.

What a mess!

[Kätzchen]

Just read a good article about Pete Buttigieg on CNN, this morning. And I plan to donate to his campaign when I get home from work today.

Here's the article, in case anyone is interested:

Pete Buttigieg Calls Mike Pence a 'Cheerleader for the Porn Star Presidency' (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pete-buttigieg-calls-mike-pence-a-cheerleader-for-the-porn-star-presidency/ar-BBUBQHo?ocid=spartanntp)

[C0LLETTE]

So you quote me, ask me direct questions and then continue to use the word "you," referring to folks on the left, to say "why are so many of YOU cowering assholes." Then you continue to use "you," in the imperative, saying stop hating on Hillary. That's pretty fucking direct.

But that's not a personal attack? The entire post is dripping with disdain and disrespect. Just charming. An example to us all.

And before you or someone calls me out for parsing your post, YOU reposted it so we could all see how you expressed yourself.

Point of personal privilege: Nowhere in my post did I write "why are so many of YOU cowering assholes". Where did that misleading quote originate?

Parse away but please reread my post first. Perhaps I should repost it again to help out .

As for the use of the word "you", is there a plural form of this word? I'd think many readers could distinguish between "you" being used singularly and "you" being used in the plural. I suppose I could have used "Y'all". Lesson learned.

On another matter: Does anyone know how to do that red bold typeface?

[Martina]

Lol. Freudian slip. I guess I knew what you were really thinking.

The y'all comment is ever so slightly rude too. Why do you despise us Yanks so much? That was abundantly clear in your original post, and has been clear in hundreds of previous posts. Surely, you have some planks to remove from your own Canadian eyes first.

[C0LLETTE]

I don't despise all Yanks. I am, however, not overly fond of someone who would misquote me and then veer off into an irrelevant tirade in reference to my nationality.

[Martina]

Like "cowering wimps" was so much more civilized.

[C0LLETTE]

It is.
Good for you for finally getting it right.

Now let's move on to your understanding of what constitutes a "Freudian slip".
Parapraxis refers to what is in your unconscious mind (the speaker), not mine, no matter how clairvoyant you believe yourself to be.

[FireSignFemme]

Looks like the shows about to start :popcorn:

[Martina]

Looks like the shows about to start :popcorn:

No. I'm done. It's silly.

[cathexis]

So you quote me, ask me direct questions and then continue to use the word "you," referring to folks on the left, to say "why are so many of YOU cowering assholes." Then you continue to use "you," in the imperative, saying stop hating on Hillary. That's pretty fucking direct.

But that's not a personal attack? The entire post is dripping with disdain and disrespect. Just charming. An example to us all.

And before you or someone calls me out for parsing your post, YOU reposted it so we could all see how you expressed yourself.

The reference to "you" when used towards folks on the left can be applied to many of us, currently. In this country, we have often been wusses because of the American political system.

We think of ourselves (Americans) as being so damned accepting, but that's a big fat myth. The Left has been persecuted in the name of "democracy" many times in our history. In the past century, we've endured the 1920s-50s Red Scare (incl. anti-unionism, Communists being executed on faked treason charges), McCarthyism, Pro-Cuban Revolution citizens losing jobs and homes, peacefully protesting students shot and killed on a college campus in Ohio by US National Guardsmen (most students were just passing to classes-not even involved), voter registrants brutally killed in MS, on and on.

We (leftists) have every reason to be very cautious given the current political climate; however, a survey of history should give those believing us to be meek, proof that we are anything but.

[dark_crystal]

"Trump has made 9,014 false or misleading claims over 773 days"

"As of the end of Sunday, March 3, the 773rd day of his term in office, Trump has reportedly accumulated 9,014 suspicious claims, Washington Post reports, citing The Fact Checker’s database. According to the American newspaper, the US president averaged nearly 5.9 false or misleading claims a day in his first year in office. In his second year, Trump reportedly hit nearly 16.5 a day and so far in 2019, he is averaging nearly 22 claims a day."

https://www.legit.ng/1226115-fact-check-trump-9014-false-misleading-claims-773-days-report.html

All these lies are indicative of the dark cancer spreading over a certain sector of the American population.


As i mentioned ion a previous post, the US suicide rate has increased 30% since 2000 (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/health/us-suicide-rate-surges-to-a-30-year-high.html):

Suicide in the United States has surged to the highest levels in nearly 30 years, a federal data analysis has found, with increases in every age group except older adults. The rise was particularly steep for women. It was also substantial among middle-aged Americans, sending a signal of deep anguish from a group whose suicide rates had been stable or falling since the 1950s.

The suicide rate for middle-aged women, ages 45 to 64, jumped by 63 percent over the period of the study, while it rose by 43 percent for men in that age range, the sharpest increase for males of any age. The overall suicide rate rose by 24 percent from 1999 to 2014, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, which released the study on Friday.

The increases were so widespread that they lifted the nation’s suicide rate to 13 per 100,000 people, the highest since 1986. The rate rose by 2 percent a year starting in 2006, double the annual rise in the earlier period of the study. In all, 42,773 people died from suicide in 2014, compared with 29,199 in 1999.

Yesterday i was on the Galveston Daily News website and i was reading the comments under a story on projected sea level rise, and 90% of commenters (most of whom can see the Gulf of Mexico from their houses) were calling climate change a liberal hoax perpetuated by money-hungry academics.

The reason US evangelicals are so rabid about Israel is because they need for the geopolitics of the situation to go a certain way so the apocalypse and rapture can hurry up and get here.

What i am saying is that the "dark cancer" is a death wish that has taken over about half of the population.

Our species as a whole is suicidal.

We've always had a suicide switch hiding inside of us-- you can see this in the apocalypse prophecies that feature in so many religions. Those are there because we know there has to be an ending to our story, because we also know, instinctively and subconsciously, that our existence is unsustainable-- just the mathematical fact of exponential population growth within a finite environment has a bad ending coded in from the beginning.

I think the suicide switch in our evolutionary makeup was triggered in 1945 when we dropped the first nuclear bomb. Our ending began that day-- as soon as it became possible for man to destroy life on earth, it also became inevitable on a long enough timeline. We know that, deep down, and we've been waiting for the other shoe to drop ever since.

What's happening now is that more and more people are tired of the suspense and just want to get it over with.

That is why we have Trump/Brexit/Marine le Pen, Bolsnaro, etc. If enough countries slide off the rails and into nationalism, the cooperation we need to save ourselves becomes impossible.

Deep down, a lot of people want that. We can't save ourselves without some discomfort and a big slice of the population would rather we all die instead of cutting consumption of anything at all.

Its not Rs vs Ds, or progressives vs liberals-- it's Team Apocalypse vs Team Carry On-- except all of the infighting and purity testing we have in certain corners of Team Carry On makes me think the suicide bug has bit a lot of us, too. Like, let's take a decade-long time-out right here, with one minute to midnight on the Doomsday Clock, and throw a couple of elections so we can break the back of the two-party system.

[charley]

As i mentioned ion a previous post, the US suicide rate has increased 30% since 2000 (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/health/us-suicide-rate-surges-to-a-30-year-high.html):

Suicide in the United States has surged to the highest levels in nearly 30 years, a federal data analysis has found, with increases in every age group except older adults. The rise was particularly steep for women. It was also substantial among middle-aged Americans, sending a signal of deep anguish from a group whose suicide rates had been stable or falling since the 1950s.

The suicide rate for middle-aged women, ages 45 to 64, jumped by 63 percent over the period of the study, while it rose by 43 percent for men in that age range, the sharpest increase for males of any age. The overall suicide rate rose by 24 percent from 1999 to 2014, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, which released the study on Friday.

The increases were so widespread that they lifted the nation’s suicide rate to 13 per 100,000 people, the highest since 1986. The rate rose by 2 percent a year starting in 2006, double the annual rise in the earlier period of the study. In all, 42,773 people died from suicide in 2014, compared with 29,199 in 1999.

Yesterday i was on the Galveston Daily News website and i was reading the comments under a story on projected sea level rise, and 90% of commenters (most of whom can see the Gulf of Mexico from their houses) were calling climate change a liberal hoax perpetuated by money-hungry academics.

The reason US evangelicals are so rabid about Israel is because they need for the geopolitics of the situation to go a certain way so the apocalypse and rapture can hurry up and get here.

What i am saying is that the "dark cancer" is a death wish that has taken over about half of the population.

Our species as a whole is suicidal.

We've always had a suicide switch hiding inside of us-- you can see this in the apocalypse prophecies that feature in so many religions. Those are there because we know there has to be an ending to our story, because we also know, instinctively and subconsciously, that our existence is unsustainable-- just the mathematical fact of exponential population growth within a finite environment has a bad ending coded in from the beginning.

I think the suicide switch in our evolutionary makeup was triggered in 1945 when we dropped the first nuclear bomb. Our ending began that day-- as soon as it became possible for man to destroy life on earth, it also became inevitable on a long enough timeline. We know that, deep down, and we've been waiting for the other shoe to drop ever since.

What's happening now is that more and more people are tired of the suspense and just want to get it over with.

That is why we have Trump/Brexit/Marine le Pen, Bolsnaro, etc. If enough countries slide off the rails and into nationalism, the cooperation we need to save ourselves becomes impossible.

Deep down, a lot of people want that. We can't save ourselves without some discomfort and a big slice of the population would rather we all die instead of cutting consumption of anything at all.

Its not Rs vs Ds, or progressives vs liberals-- it's Team Apocalypse vs Team Carry On-- except all of the infighting and purity testing we have in certain corners of Team Carry On makes me think the suicide bug has bit a lot of us, too. Like, let's take a decade-long time-out right here, with one minute to midnight on the Doomsday Clock, and throw a couple of elections so we can break the back of the two-party system.

My jaw dropped when reading everything you wrote. OMG, where does one start?

The suicide stuff, omg, women, how tragic. I have read about suicide genes in simple organisms... Personally, have never felt suicidal, but am very aware of how things have changed from the time and in the way the Americans ended WWII - I would call it a a wrong turn - yes, indeed. It is the epitome of self-destruction.

As one see it (extensional awareness) this wrong turn has its own momentum, and events are moving in a way that cannot be reversed. Nothing one (or others who see it) could do or say will reverse this trend. There is a possibility of a new movement (one would call it a new seed) only in 200-300 years.

Personally, life protects me. One doesn't have to do a thing. Because of one side-effect of meditation, one observes with dispassionate indifference that the horrific tragedies that are impending with the resulting loss of millions of lives are inevitable.

One's one extensional awareness is such that one is wary to move, goodness in Canadians having dropped dramatically and exponentially. The movement away from the land to urban areas has greatly affected this drop.

There is also the fact that people do not realize that there is only one human brain, and like birds flying in a flock, they are moving in one direction. Even the more sentient fish, dolphins and whales, are beaching themselves - not to mention how so many animals are moving towards extinction.

Personally, one skips from rock to rock, along the stream of sorrow, which has become way to much to bear. Every time one rests (makes any kind of connection with someone involved in this dark trend) - even for a second, one senses the impending doom.

Such people have made everything involved in life an entertainment, an endless repetitive pleasure. (One would add that one has nothing against pleasure per se.)

One shudders in horror at the thought of even having someone like that come into close physical contact...

Not being into power, one is powerless, and can only observe. Enough said...

[Martina]

I actually heard a journalist use the phrase "late Capitalism" on the radio the other day. My mouth fell open. The leftist critique of Capitalism is going mainstream. I think because it's hard to deny anymore. The end result of Capitalism is that it consumes itself, destroying everything for short term gain.

I don't think Capitalism is an expression of some inherent human impulse although elements of it are. Early humans wiped out large mammals when we moved into new environments, and we wiped ourselves out in some places due to deforestation. But cooperation is also in our DNA. Think of bonobos. Even chimpanzee troops over time have as many cooperative peacemaker alphas as they do warrior Kings. Evolution makes sure there's always both to choose from. That doesn't mean we won't go extinct. We surely will at some point.

I honestly don't know if we'll survive on this planet. I don't care that much. I do know that the planet will survive anything we do to it. Some life will remain, and there will be a reboot. We'd have to completely burn the atmosphere off and boil the oceans to destroy 99 point whatever percent of life, and while we're fucking with them, we're not yet capable of that. (I googled, and even if all the nuclear weapons were detonated creating a long long nuclear Winter, scientists say only 75% of life on the planet would die. It's gonna take an asteroid to kill the planet until we invent something worse than nuclear weapons.) I think we'll kill ourselves long before we destroy the planet. I am not saying we won't cause a mass extinction. We already are. But life will go on.

I'm wandering. What I think we're seeing is the late stage of Capitalism. But something different will emerge. Even if inequality gets much worse, and the super rich arm themselves, etc., I think that something different and more egalitarian will emerge. There is too much information, there are too many smart people, for the one tenth of one percent to continue in power once our very lives are at risk (water rationing, for example).

But who knows? The Nazis were very successful where they ruled. Eighty percent of Germans supported them. Because the Nazis wiped out entire towns when there was resistance, resistance really was futile. The French resistance was meaningless. All resistance movements were except Tito's in what became Yugoslavia. A really determined Fascist regime, or group of regimes, could create some kind of temporary dystopia.

I agree it's not Republicans versus Democrats because liberals have been destroying our economies and the planet at a furious pace. It's the one tenth of one percent versus the rest of us. People who continue to support mainstream Dems, along with Republicans, remain blind to this and are part of the problem. The lesser of two evils will not save us from a nasty resolution to these global economic and evironmental changes.

[kittygrrl]

I think we should split the country down the Mississippi River-eastern half-conservatives
western half-progressives..it's kinda happening already. I think they should be separate countries. The North & South tried it once but i think people may be more interested in it considering the political divide that exists now. I have heard California would like to be it's own country..I like the idea but they have one huge problem. Water.

[C0LLETTE]

I think we should split the country down the Mississippi River-eastern half-conservatives
western half-progressives..it's kinda happening already. I think they should be separate countries. The North & South tried it once but i think people may be more interested in it considering the political divide that exists now. I have heard California would like to be it's own country..I like the idea but they have one huge problem. Water.

If California wants to join up with Canada, we'll give them all the water they want.:welcome:

[dark_crystal]

What I think we're seeing is the late stage of Capitalism. But something different will emerge. Even if inequality gets much worse, and the super rich arm themselves, etc., I think that something different and more egalitarian will emerge. There is too much information, there are too many smart people, for the one tenth of one percent to continue in power once our very lives are at risk (water rationing, for example).


i really feel like the concepts we have of freedom and liberty, by now several centuries old, become less feasible as the population grows. There are just too many of us now for freedom to mean anything except the right to choices in consumption (capitalism) and the right to harm oneself/others/the planet without government interference (libertarianism.)

The planet is getting too full for everyone to just do what they want. It is too full for every nation to just do what they want. As we get more crowded, we have less freedom, and it gets harder to exercise the freedoms that remain without impacting everyone around you.

We have to redefine freedom as security, despite what Ben Franklin said ("Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.")

The first time i ever understood the difference between joy and happiness was when i read a negative definition of joy-- describing joy as the sense of well-being that arises from the removal of worry.

That is what freedom will mean in the 22nd century, for the 20% of humanity that remains. "Freedom" will mean "food, health, and housing security with sufficient opportunities for creating meaning."

[kittygrrl]

your post reminded me of what happened after the plague...those that remained did enjoy more opportunity and more food...the upside of calamity...hm, food for thought:hangloose:

[cathexis]

With all the environmental destruction, we'll be left with scarce resources. All the wild areas that have been opened for unconscientious hunting practices and exploitation of minerals and coal/oil, the turning back of fairly good environmental regulations, ice cap melting, and plastics in the ocean, etc. are signs of Capitalism decay.

One day we will have a Great Depression (1929) or Great Recession (2008) that cannot be resolved, a perfect opportunity for a Global Fascist takeover.

Individual countries need to be ready with an acceptable alternate form of government lest Fascism move in to fill the void. The most negative force will always invade and prevail like an untended lawn going to weed.

[Martina]

Well, Beto has declared. I like this Buttigieg guy. That meme of his reaction to the idea of Pence as President was a riot. And so real. It sounds like Biden's going to announce soon.

Tulsi Gabbard's apology/explanation for her homophobia did not strike me as heart felt. Who knows?

[dark_crystal]

Dear Beto:

https://memebomb.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/spray-bottle-no-meme-3.jpg

signed, someone who voted for you for Senate

[dark_crystal]

Well, Beto has declared. I like this Buttigieg guy. That meme of his reaction to the idea of Pence as President was a riot. And so real. It sounds like Biden's going to announce soon.

Tulsi Gabbard's apology/explanation for her homophobia did not strike me as heart felt. Who knows?

I really like Mayor Pete! The CNN Town Hall he did on Sunday was amazing-- so intelligent, thoughtful, and authentic.

He said he has 85% of the donors he needs for the debate stage.

[C0LLETTE]

A Canadian POV: Read at your own risk :readfineprint:

Watching Beto in Iowa. Turns every question into a speech full of "anecdotes" of meeting this person or that; uses first name of his son Ulysses repeatedly. Sure is slick.

This Canadian much prefers Mayor Pete...no bombast, no arms waving, just thoughtful intelligent, often charming responses.And no two handed thumping handshakes.

[MsTinkerbelly]

A Canadian POV: Read at your own risk :readfineprint:

Watching Beto in Iowa. Turns every question into a speech full of "anecdotes" of meeting this person or that; uses first name of his son Ulysses repeatedly. Sure is slick.

This Canadian much prefers Mayor Pete...no bombast, no arms waving, just thoughtful intelligent, often charming responses.And no two handed thumping handshakes.

I thought i was the only one that doesn’t care for Beto! The disjointed arm waving and spastic movements are unbearable to watch, and he manages to say nothing and still talk ceaselessly.

From what I have seen so far, we don’t have a winner among the bunch of candidates queuing up for the Democratic nomination...i’m starting to feel that beating Trump is going to take a miracle.

[charley]

I wonder whether those (on this site) who would like to see someone beat Trump are aware that the prospective Dem candidate must appeal to the average American (who may have voted for Trump in the past election), and not necessarily appeal to those here who are not at all the same as the average American ... said with the greatest respect, and obviously someone who I myself might not like either as the one who the Dems choose to run against Trump.

In our words, in this small little oasis, our povs may be counterproductive in terms of supporting the Dems winning.

[MsTinkerbelly]

I wonder whether those (on this site) who would like to see someone beat Trump are aware that the prospective Dem candidate must appeal to the average American (who may have voted for Trump in the past election), and not necessarily appeal to those here who are not at all the same as the average American ... said with the greatest respect, and obviously someone who I myself might not like either as the one who the Dems choose to run against Trump.

In our words, in this small little oasis, our povs may be counterproductive in terms of supporting the Dems winning.

I know we Americans appear to be incredibly stupid about our own political system, but we know that what WE (here on BFP) want is not a true sampling of what the dumbed down American public might vote for...dear God, do you have to be so patronizing?

[charley]

I thought i was the only one that doesn’t care for Beto! The disjointed arm waving and spastic movements are unbearable to watch, and he manages to say nothing and still talk ceaselessly.

From what I have seen so far, we don’t have a winner among the bunch of candidates queuing up for the Democratic nomination...i’m starting to feel that beating Trump is going to take a miracle.

Trump made a similar denigrating comment about Beto's arm movements.

I watched the same coffee room intro and Q&A in Iowa as others did earlier today, and he did say something, actually quite a lot - about tariffs, about climate change, about teachers' salaries, even about accepting the "idea" of the new green deal, etc.

[~ocean]

Trump made a similar denigrating comment about Beto's arm movements.

I watched the same coffee room intro and Q&A in Iowa as others did earlier today, and he did say something, actually quite a lot - about tariffs, about climate change, about teachers' salaries, even about accepting the "idea" of the new green deal, etc.

I have always practiced restraint when discussing another ctry's politics.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Trump made a similar denigrating comment about Beto's arm movements.

I watched the same coffee room intro and Q&A in Iowa as others did earlier today, and he did say something, actually quite a lot - about tariffs, about climate change, about teachers' salaries, even about accepting the "idea" of the new green deal, etc.

And, we could do this all day. I watched Beto at SXSW, and in speeches prior to that. I think he is disjointed, and spastic, and I don’t give a flying fuck if Trump said anything about anyone.

You are way off in your patronizing comments and lack of understanding of what I AM SAYING. So, go bother someone else with your comments about OUR politics and my opinion.

[dark_crystal]

I actually heard a journalist use the phrase "late Capitalism" on the radio the other day. My mouth fell open. The leftist critique of Capitalism is going mainstream. I think because it's hard to deny anymore. The end result of Capitalism is that it consumes itself, destroying everything for short term gain.

I don't think Capitalism is an expression of some inherent human impulse although elements of it are. Early humans wiped out large mammals when we moved into new environments, and we wiped ourselves out in some places due to deforestation. But cooperation is also in our DNA. Think of bonobos. Even chimpanzee troops over time have as many cooperative peacemaker alphas as they do warrior Kings. Evolution makes sure there's always both to choose from. That doesn't mean we won't go extinct. We surely will at some point.

I honestly don't know if we'll survive on this planet. I don't care that much. I do know that the planet will survive anything we do to it. Some life will remain, and there will be a reboot. We'd have to completely burn the atmosphere off and boil the oceans to destroy 99 point whatever percent of life, and while we're fucking with them, we're not yet capable of that. (I googled, and even if all the nuclear weapons were detonated creating a long long nuclear Winter, scientists say only 75% of life on the planet would die. It's gonna take an asteroid to kill the planet until we invent something worse than nuclear weapons.) I think we'll kill ourselves long before we destroy the planet. I am not saying we won't cause a mass extinction. We already are. But life will go on.

I'm wandering. What I think we're seeing is the late stage of Capitalism. But something different will emerge. Even if inequality gets much worse, and the super rich arm themselves, etc., I think that something different and more egalitarian will emerge. There is too much information, there are too many smart people, for the one tenth of one percent to continue in power once our very lives are at risk (water rationing, for example).

But who knows? The Nazis were very successful where they ruled. Eighty percent of Germans supported them. Because the Nazis wiped out entire towns when there was resistance, resistance really was futile. The French resistance was meaningless. All resistance movements were except Tito's in what became Yugoslavia. A really determined Fascist regime, or group of regimes, could create some kind of temporary dystopia.

I agree it's not Republicans versus Democrats because liberals have been destroying our economies and the planet at a furious pace. It's the one tenth of one percent versus the rest of us. People who continue to support mainstream Dems, along with Republicans, remain blind to this and are part of the problem. The lesser of two evils will not save us from a nasty resolution to these global economic and evironmental changes.

As i have mentioned (i always say that lately because i've been on here a loooong time and everything i say is a rerun, i feel) I read A LOT of science fiction.

One of my favorite authors, Cory Doctorow (https://craphound.com/) has written about "post-scarcity economies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy)" and half-jokingly about "fully automated luxury space communism (https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/mar/18/fully-automated-luxury-communism-robots-employment)." He has also written about reputation economies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whuffie).

Basically the principle is that increasing automation means scarcity will eventually be able to disappear, and won't continue to rule the economy unless we artificially maintain it (likely)

This is in line with AOC's comments the other day (https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/10/18258134/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-automation-sxsw-2019) about how odd it is that we should have to fear automation.

As far as capitalism goes, i was pretty influenced by Max Weber, who said that the roots of capitalism lie in Judeo-Christian monotheism, and that it's spread was enabled by the Protestant Reformation and Calvinism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism) (i know for a fact i ranted about this in the 2016 thread, as a lot of how Trump won has its roots in Calvinist ideas of wealth.) Definitely not an inherent human impulse.

Unfortunately, the lesser of two evils is the best we can hope for. Humanity has a "long tail." There will always be a broad spectrum of thought and only the middling ground is likely to achieve the critical mass that changes thought into action. We need extreme action, but the mainstream has the numbers.

If we dismiss everyone to the right of Bernie, we die.

We can't reject "the lesser of two evils." We have to colonize it.

This is why figures like Bernie and AOC are so important-- they are mainstreaming what was once an extreme, and making the lesser of two evils marginally less evil.

This is also why the condescension and aggression that leftists have sometimes expressed is so damaging. Every time we sneer at the centrists we shoot ourselves in the foot.

The right wing calls all non-right-wingers baby killers, says we are delusional and that our views are evidence of a mental disorder, and we feel like that makes it ok to police everybody's wokeness and gatekeep "woke" status against anyone of insufficient ideological purity.

AOC was widely quoted by the right-wing press for her comments at SXSW where she said:
“Stop trying to win people over, stop trying to enter a conversation thinking that you’re going to, like, ‘aha’ them into changing their minds. And so, I think, that, you know, we’ve kind of lost the art of conversation. So when I enter a conversation with someone I actually try to learn more about where they’re coming from, like I try — I actually use it as an experience to — like, let’s say, I’m talking to someone who’s saying something really racist and they don’t even realize that they’re saying something really racist, I — I asked some questions because I’m interested, I’m fascinated by that. How does that work, you know?”

“we have to learn to, like, really disarm ourselves in these conversations first of all, because we approach them with so much hostility and, like, they get mad and we get mad and all of these things and — and we have — so, part of it is, like, emotional work. And — and the second part of it is intention, like, what are you trying to get out of this conversation?”
"What are you trying to get out of this conversation?"

Indeed.

We need to remember that we are fighting to survive and the right wing is not. We can't afford the self-indulgence that they can.

[dark_crystal]

If we dismiss everyone to the right of Bernie, we die.

We can't reject "the lesser of two evils." We have to colonize it.

This is why figures like Bernie and AOC are so important-- they are mainstreaming what was once an extreme, and making the lesser of two evils marginally less evil.

This is also why the condescension and aggression that leftists have sometimes expressed is so damaging. Every time we sneer at the centrists we shoot ourselves in the foot.

The right wing calls all non-right-wingers baby killers, says we are delusional and that our views are evidence of a mental disorder, and we feel like that makes it ok to police everybody's wokeness and gatekeep "woke" status against anyone of insufficient ideological purity.

AOC was widely quoted by the right-wing press for her comments at SXSW where she said:
“Stop trying to win people over, stop trying to enter a conversation thinking that you’re going to, like, ‘aha’ them into changing their minds. And so, I think, that, you know, we’ve kind of lost the art of conversation. So when I enter a conversation with someone I actually try to learn more about where they’re coming from, like I try — I actually use it as an experience to — like, let’s say, I’m talking to someone who’s saying something really racist and they don’t even realize that they’re saying something really racist, I — I asked some questions because I’m interested, I’m fascinated by that. How does that work, you know?”

“we have to learn to, like, really disarm ourselves in these conversations first of all, because we approach them with so much hostility and, like, they get mad and we get mad and all of these things and — and we have — so, part of it is, like, emotional work. And — and the second part of it is intention, like, what are you trying to get out of this conversation?”
"What are you trying to get out of this conversation?"

Indeed.

We need to remember that we are fighting to survive and the right wing is not. We can't afford the self-indulgence that they can.

For clarity, i am not calling out individuals here, but questioning decisions like the one to bar pro-life feminists from the Women's March.

Pro-life feminists are the lesser of two evils compared to Operation Rescue, and they do not have a pro-life legislative or judicial agenda. They are not a threat to us, but we decided we did not need their support.

[Martina]

I can't delude myself that mainstream Dems, liberals, are not as implicated in the systems that keep us hurling toward the precipice as Conservatives are.

I absolutely despise the neo-liberal politics of Clinton and Obama. The college admissions scandal is causing people everywhere to laugh at the meritocracy bullshit they've been hearing for so long.

Not only did liberals undermine unions, they allowed corporations to destroy industry. Jobs were not just exported when factories relocated, Dems, along with Republicans, applauded while the Bain Capitols of this world tore apart viable businesses and sold them for parts for short term profit.

Cannibalizing industry left them awash in cash which they invested in the financial instruments that collapsed our economy in 08.

Worker retraining programs were completely half assed and ineffective while Democrats endlessly endlessly blamed working people for not adjusting to the new global economy. Dems have been the kings of the meritocracy bullshit.

Then the unregulated and unethical financial industry took off because of the bound to fail mortgage backed securities. Corporations and the very rich had an even more difficult time finding places to put their wealth. So they tempted countries like Greece and Spain to take huge investments which could never be repaid. Everyone knew this, but it was the fucking establishment, like the neo-liberal World Bank, enabling it all.

After the crash, they forced austerity onto a number of countries. Literally tens of thousands of Greek children are now brain damaged from poor nutrition because of the worst years of austerity.

Every bullshit thing that was supposed to help working people in the US survive the depredations of the unregulated economy that Reagan and Clinton let loose on us was a lie. Almost no one was helped by Obama's programs to help people during the mortgage crisis. They didn't even spend the money initially allocated. Almost no one has been helped by the student debt forgiveness programs. And as I said, the retraining programs of the previous generation didn't make the tiniest dent.

And now they have come after public pensions and social security. The effort to destroy public employee unions and pilfer our pensions has been backed by Clintonite meritocracy liberals like Bill Gates.

On the issues that have led us to this place, where populism is appealing to people around the world, liberals are as guilty as conservatives. And voters know it. They know they've been lied to. The only thing that can combat fascist populism is the truth that comes from left-leaning populists like Bernie.

[C0LLETTE]

I believe that the liberal centre should and must hold. Without it we collapse into a chaotic gaping vacuum and the apocalyptic end that the extremes on both the Left and the Right seem so gleefully and confidently to predict becomes our fate.

The Centre IS Populst. That is where most of us are... in the middle, not wanting to be thrown into the flames of other people's extreme political and religious philosophies...the" Far This " and the " Far That ". The centre is a relative place, not fixed and it does move ( albeit slowly )to reasonable, agreeable positions.

I believe that the "liberal centre" is the well-spring of human and humane sanity.

[Martina]

A Clinton-era centrist Democrat explains why it’s time to give democratic socialists a chance

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/4/18246381/democrats-clinton-sanders-left-brad-delong

The rise of the Democratic left, personified by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), has raised a serious question: Should Democrats lean away from market-friendly stances and get comfortable with big government again? Should they embrace an ambitious 2020 candidate like Sanders and policies like the Green New Deal, or stick with incrementalists like former Vice President Joe Biden and more market-oriented ideas like Obamacare?

One of the most interesting takes I’ve seen on this debate came from Brad DeLong, an economist at the University of California-Berkeley. DeLong, who served as deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy in the Clinton administration, who is one of the market-friendly, “neoliberal” Democrats who have dominated the party for the last 20 years. The term he uses for himself is “Rubin Democrat” — referring to followers of finance industry-friendly Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin.

Yet DeLong believes that the time of people like him running the Democratic Party has passed. “The baton rightly passes to our colleagues on our left,” DeLong wrote. “We are still here, but it is not our time to lead.”

It’s not often that someone in this policy debate — or, frankly, any policy debate — suggests that their side should lose. So I reached out to DeLong to dig into the reasons for his position: Why does he believe that neoliberals’ time in the sun has come to an end?

The core reason, DeLong argues, is political. The policies he supports depend on a responsible center-right partner to succeed. They’re premised on the understanding that at least a faction of the Republican Party would be willing to support market-friendly ideas like Obamacare or a cap-and-trade system for climate change. This is no longer the case, if it ever were.

“Barack Obama rolls into office with Mitt Romney’s health care policy, with John McCain’s climate policy, with Bill Clinton’s tax policy, and George H.W. Bush’s foreign policy,” DeLong notes. “And did George H.W. Bush, did Mitt Romney, did John McCain say a single good word about anything Barack Obama ever did over the course of eight solid years? No, they fucking did not.”

The result, he argues, is the nature of the Democratic Party needs to shift. Rather than being a center-left coalition dominated by market-friendly ideas designed to attract conservative support, the energy of the coalition should come from the left and its broad, sweeping ideas. Market-friendly neoliberals, rather than pushing their own ideology, should work to improve ideas on the left. This, he believes, is the most effective and sustainable basis for Democratic politics and policy for the foreseeable future.

What follows is a transcript of our conversation, edited for length and clarity.

Zack Beauchamp
I want to start with your notion of “Rubin Democrats.” What does that mean, exactly? What was the movement you identify with?

Brad DeLong
I would say it’s largely neoliberal, market-oriented, and market-regulation and tuning aimed at social democratic ends. It also involves taking a step in the direction of appeasing conservative priorities. The belief is that if you have a broad coalition behind such policy, it will be much more strongly entrenched in America and much better implemented than if it were implemented by a narrow, largely partisan majority.

And Rubin Democrats believe that you should prioritize economic growth. Once you have economic growth, electorates want to become a lot less Grinch-y and less likely to feel that redistribution to the poor is coming out of its hide, making them positively worse-off. Economic growth first, redistribution and beefing up the safety net second.

Zack Beauchamp
What you’re describing is a broad theory of political economy, in which a vision for what economic policies are best is intertwined with a particular view of what makes policies popular and sustainable. You say something about this is wrong — do you think it’s the political part, the economic part, or both?

Brad DeLong
We were certainly wrong, 100 percent, on the politics.

Barack Obama rolls into office with Mitt Romney’s health care policy, with John McCain’s climate policy, with Bill Clinton’s tax policy, and George H.W. Bush’s foreign policy. He’s all these things not because the technocrats in his administration think they’re the best possible policies, but because [White House adviser] David Axelrod and company say they poll well.

And [Chief of Staff] Rahm Emanuel and company say we’ve got to build bridges to the Republicans. We’ve got to let Republicans amend cap and trade up the wazoo, we’ve got to let Republicans amend the [Affordable Care Act] up the wazoo before it comes up to a final vote, we’ve got to tread very lightly with finance on Dodd-Frank, we have to do a very premature pivot away from recession recovery to “entitlement reform.”

All of these with the idea that you would then collect a broad political coalition behind what is, indeed, Mitt Romney’s health care policy and John McCain’s climate policy and George H.W. Bush’s foreign policy.

And did George H.W. Bush, did Mitt Romney, did John McCain say a single good word about anything Barack Obama ever did over the course of eight solid years?

No, they fucking did not. No allegiance to truth on anything other than the belief that John Boehner, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell are the leaders of the Republican Party, and since they’ve decided on scorched earth, we’re to back them to the hilt. So the politics were completely wrong, and we saw this starting back in the Clinton administration.

Today, there’s literally nobody on the right between those frantically accommodating Donald Trump, on the one hand, and us on the other. Except for our brave friends in exile from the Cato Institute now trying to build something in the ruins at the [centrist] Niskanen Center. There’s simply no political place for neoliberals to lead with good policies that make a concession to right-wing concerns.

Zack Beauchamp
Let’s talk a little bit about the intra-Democratic fight. When you say “pass the baton to the left,” does that mean give up on substantive policies where you — meaning Rubin Democrats — disagree with the left?

Brad De Long
No. It means argue with them, to the extent that their policies are going to be wrong and destructive, but also accept that there is no political path to a coalition built from the Rubin-center out. Instead, we accommodate ourselves to those on our left. To the extent that they will not respond to our concerns, what they’re proposing is a helluva better than the poke-in-the-eye with a sharp stick. That’s either Trumpist proposals or the current status.

Zack Beauchamp
So the position is not that neoliberals should abandon their policy beliefs. It’s that you need to reorient your understanding of who your coalition is.

Brad DeLong
Yes, but that’s also relevant to policy beliefs, right?
A belief in cap and trade — rather than the carbon tax plus huge, honking public research — was both a belief that the market really ought to rule here, plus a belief that stakeholders who are producing carbon energy can be bought off with cap-and-trade: that the Koch brothers would rather be selling their carbon allowances than having to actually burn coal to produce things. Plus, a belief there were Republicans who would actually think that global warming is a menace, and be willing to argue strenuously within the Republican coalition that something needs to be done about this.

A bunch of policies that depended on there being a political-economic consensus to support them, as part of a broad agreement about America’s direction, are a lot worse as policies if that political-economic underpinning is not there. There also are a bunch of lessons about how policies that we thought are going to be very effective are rather less effective.

Zack Beauchamp
The response you hear from conservative and Democratic centrists, those Blue Dogs that remain, is that they are the partners that you need to appease, not the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez left. The Democratic coalition depends on winning in red states.

Brad DeLong
The first lesson is the Gingrich lesson: If you’re in a swing state, you lose your seat if the president of your party is perceived to be a failure. The highest priority for Blue Dogs in red and purple states — in 1994 and in 2010 — ought to have been making it clear the president of their party was a great success.

If there is a good state of the world in 2021 — the Lord willing and the creek don’t rise — everyone and all Blue Dogs in office needs to recognize that and act on that.

That’s the political level and on the policy level. We tried to do health reform the Republicans’ way ,and what’s now clear with a Republican Supreme Court and with a lot of Republican governors, any attempt to do it the Republicans’ way is going to get shredded. We tried to do climate policy the Republicans’ way, and got nowhere.

Until something non-rubble-ish is built in the Republican center, what might be good incremental policies just cannot be successfully implemented in an America as we know it today. We need Medicare-for-all, funded by a carbon tax, with a whole bunch of UBI rebates for the poor and public investment in green technologies.

That’s the best policy given the political-economic context. If the political-economic context were different — well, I’m fundamentally a neoliberal shill. It is very nice to use market means to social democratic ends when they are more effective, and they often are.

If you can properly tweak market prices, you then don’t just have one smart guy trying to design a policy that advances an objective — you have 30 million people all over the country, all incentivized to design a policy. That’s a wonderful thing to have.

Zack Beauchamp
But despite that substantive view, you think that instead of freaking out about the leftists at the gates, it’s smarter to side with them — to treat them as political coalition partners.

Brad De Long
Our current bunch of leftists are wonderful people, as far as leftists in the past are concerned. They’re social democrats, they’re very strong believers in democracy. They’re very strong believers in fair distribution of wealth. They could use a little more education about what is likely to work and what is not. But they’re people who we’re very, very lucky to have on our side.


That’s especially opposed to the people on the other side, who are very, very strange indeed. You listen to [Never Trump conservatives] like Tom Nichols or Bruce Bartlett or Bill Kristol or David Frum talk about all the people they had been with in meetings, biting their tongues over the past 25 years, and your reaction can only be, “Why didn’t you run away screaming into the night long ago?”

Zack Beauchamp
I don’t know if what you’re describing is a long-running reconfiguration of American politics, an emergency alliance with the left to stop an out-of-control right, or both. How would you describe the conditions that have pushed you toward a more-left oriented position than you had before?

Brad DeLong
I’d say we learned more about the world.

I could be confident in 2005 that [recession] stabilization should be the responsibility of the Federal Reserve. That you look at something like laser-eye surgery or rapid technological progress in hearing aids, you can kind of think that keeping a market in the most innovative parts of health care would be a good thing. So something like an insurance-plus-exchange system would be a good thing to have in America as a whole.

It’s much harder to believe in those things now. That’s one part of it. The world appears to be more like what lefties thought it was than what I thought it was for the last 10 or 15 years.

The other part is that while I would like to be part of a political coalition in the cat seat, able to call for bids from the left and the right about who wants to be part of the governing coalition to actually get things done, that’s simply not possible as of now.

We shouldn’t pretend that it is, or that it’s going to be. We need to find ways to improve left-wing initiatives, rather than demand that they start from our basic position and do minor tweaks to make them more acceptable to their underlying position.

[Martina]

From a Washington Post editorial commenting on the above interview:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/04/centrist-democrat-explains-why-its-time-give-left-chance/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.60fd189140fd

There’s a lot of chatter about an interview that center-left Democratic economist Brad DeLong just gave to Vox, in which DeLong argues that it’s time for centrists like him to make peace with the left. The core insight that DeLong offers is that the animating idea driving many centrist Democrats for years has proved to be a failure, and as a result, it’s time for them to rethink their approach to both politics and policy in accordance with this new reality.

As DeLong puts it, on one issue after another — from health care to climate change — centrist-minded Democrats have modulated the party’s priorities in hopes of striking a political deal with the center-right. But that deal has never been forthcoming, because there is no functional center-right in U.S. politics.

DeLong notes that centrist Democrats like himself have been driven by a genuine belief in the superiority of market-oriented or (as they’re sometimes called) “neoliberal” policies, but also a theory of political change. That theory held that striking broad bipartisan deals on policy might be worth doing, even if the result is somewhat less progressive, because it would result in them being “more strongly entrenched in America and much better implemented than if it were implemented by a narrow, largely partisan majority.”

But as DeLong points out, this hasn’t paid off . . . .

The reward for adopting Mitt Romney’s health-care plan in hopes of getting bipartisan support for it was unremitting scorched-earth opposition to Obamacare, including a failed effort to repeal it entirely, which Republicans undertook while pretending they were maintaining people’s protections.

The reward for Obama and Democrats reaching deals to cut spending and treading lightly in response to the worst economic crisis in 70 years, and keeping full-blown economic populism at bay, was President Trump’s massive deficit-exploding corporate tax cut that showered enormous benefits on top earners, which Republicans passed while pretending their plan was pro-worker.

The reward for Obama and Democrats embracing market-oriented “cap and trade” climate policy was that Republicans blocked it with a wall of intransigence and fossil-fuel-industry-funded climate change denialism. Now Republicans are all-in with Trump’s even more explicit climate denialism and a full-scale effort to roll back everything Obama did to combat global warming, including Trump pulling us out of a painstakingly negotiated international deal in a manner that is enraging our allies.

I would add one more to this list: immigration. As I’ve noted, on immigration, the Democratic Party for many years embraced the idea that supporting maximal enforcement would lure Republicans into supporting legalizing undocumented immigrants. But GOP intransigence has revealed this as a fantasy. After Democrats passed comprehensive immigration reform embodying that bargain through the Senate in 2013 by a broad bipartisan majority, the GOP-controlled House simply refused to vote on it. Now Republicans have gone all-in with an even more virulent form of xenophobic anti-immigrant nationalism, as well as with imaginary solutions like mass deportations and Trump’s wall.

So now we’re seeing an increasingly emboldened left making the case for much more progressive taxation and much more aggressive efforts to rewrite the rules of the market, for dramatically ambitious health care and climate policies in the form of various iterations of Medicare for all and the Green New Deal, and for a move away from an enforcement-for-legalization paradigm on immigration, and toward a much more pro-immigration stance as a matter of basic values. And the party as a whole is much more open to these aggressive postures.

It’s important to stress that the party has been pushed toward these positions by grass-roots movements and by the changing nature of the Democratic base, which is more diverse, younger and better educated than it was the last time Democrats held a House majority. But another thing driving these changes is that in many of these areas — from soaring economic inequality to climate change to the need for reforms to our immigration system that don’t retreat on our humanitarian commitments — there’s an increased recognition that the Republican Party is basically going to sit out the process of addressing these major challenges of our time, as most Democrats understand them.

This, combined with the fact that some of these challenges are simultaneously growing more urgent, is pushing Democrats toward more ambitious solutions and away from a futile, accommodationist effort to chase the mirage of consensus with the center-right.

[cathexis]

So, simply put, the current political clime is fulfilling the prophesy prevalent in the 1980s, a time of recession and great fear as we had hostages held in Iran. Analysis of the minor political partys' results of 1980 is quite intriguing. Thus was my grad thesis in Marxist Studies/Political Philosophy.

On the Far Left were CP-USA, various Trotskyist parties, moving toward the top of a large circle was the Green Party moving to Dems with Jimmy Carter and across to Reps with Ronald Reagan. As the circle moves right and down one finds Lyndon LaRouche then David Duke. As the circle nears the very bottom, the Libertarian Party meets the right wing Anarchists-followed by the left Anarchists. This is where the circle meets.

The Right Wing was overwhelmingly extremist with KKK and conspiracy theorists like Lyndon LaRouche followed by the American Nazi Party with Right wing Anarchists backed up to the Left Anarchists with political positions almost imperceptibly different. Then up the curve were the Trotskyists and Stalinist Communist Parties.

The parties formed a political circle that comes together rather than the traditional line view of the political spectrum.

Coming election, it will be interesting and informative to look at the percentages these small "Alt-Right" and Libertarian. We could get a glimpse of what might be in store.

[dark_crystal]

So, simply put, the current political clime is fulfilling the prophesy prevalent in the 1980s, a time of recession and great fear as we had hostages held in Iran. Analysis of the minor political partys' results of 1980 is quite intriguing. Thus was my grad thesis in Marxist Studies/Political Philosophy.

On the Far Left were CP-USA, various Trotskyist parties, moving toward the top of a large circle was the Green Party moving to Dems with Jimmy Carter and across to Reps with Ronald Reagan. As the circle moves right and down one finds Lyndon LaRouche then David Duke. As the circle nears the very bottom, the Libertarian Party meets the right wing Anarchists-followed by the left Anarchists. This is where the circle meets.

The Right Wing was overwhelmingly extremist with KKK and conspiracy theorists like Lyndon LaRouche followed by the American Nazi Party with Right wing Anarchists backed up to the Left Anarchists with political positions almost imperceptibly different. Then up the curve were the Trotskyists and Stalinist Communist Parties.

The parties formed a political circle that comes together rather than the traditional line view of the political spectrum.

Coming election, it will be interesting and informative to look at the percentages these small "Alt-Right" and Libertarian. We could get a glimpse of what might be in store.

You're talking about Horseshoe Theory and there are very few two-word phrases that will get leftists online as riled up as that one.

I just feel like capitalism is totally fine when it comes to discretionary consumption items, but it never should have been applied to staple items, justice, health, education, warfighting, or politics.

And it seems willfully obtuse to insist capitalism has to be all or nothing. To insist that if we take profit out of life-or-death matters then the next thing you know we'll all have matching government haircuts and uniform scrubs, is disingenuous to the extreme, but we fall all over ourselves trying to disprove it..

The "mistake" of the mainstream dems (mistake in quotes because it is applied with the benefit of the doubt) was in believing that conservatives actually wanted the outcomes they claimed to want. Dems believed conservatives would work with them if they could get to a result that lay somewhere within the scope of what they could find tolerable.

This was never going to be the case, as conservatives don't actually want any of the things they talk about. They just want wealth and power. So dems compromised themselves making a good faith argument to a bad faith premise.

As i said, "mistake" gives the benefit of the doubt. Wealthy people are wealthy people first and foremost. To me it seems like the past 30 years have been "capitalism with patriarchy and white supremacy" vs "capitalism with ladies."

"Capitalism with ladies" is the lesser of two evils, by far (freedom from forced birth is still a pretty good deal), but neither party wants equality.

[Martina]

I really like Mayor Pete! The CNN Town Hall he did on Sunday was amazing-- so intelligent, thoughtful, and authentic.

He said he has 85% of the donors he needs for the debate stage.

He got his 65,000. He'll be debating. A historic day.

[Martina]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/16/trumps-2020-campaign-just-like-2016-but-now-with-more-political-data

[Martina]

And didn't I read that Jeb Bush is calling for Republicans to run? That would stir things up. I don't think it will happen. The base still really loves Trump.

[Martina]

Biden saying he has the most progressive record of anyone running --

I don't dislike him, but LOL.

Nobody wants the middle. Lol.

[dark_crystal]

He got his 65,000. He'll be debating. A historic day.

He is getting a lot of attention bc of the story about him learning Norwegian so he could finish a novel series in which only the first book had been translated, and for his response to Christchurch.

Honestly, we could do soooo much worse than nominating Mayor Pete. He's inexperienced, but he also has very little baggage. And they take half of your white card when you come out, so he still ticks the diversity box that so many centrist dems are insisting on.

And he honestly seems very thoughtful and he has that grace that gay people sometimes get when everybody disappoints you, early on, but you decide to love them anyway.

[dark_crystal]

Biden saying he has the most progressive record of anyone running --

I don't dislike him, but LOL.

Nobody wants the middle. Lol.

He does not seem to have a listening bone in his body. I just don't feel like you can tell him anything. He has that white-dude self-assurance that is completely certain that he has more to tell you than you could possibly tell him.

[kittygrrl]

i like the middle..you stay warm and have a little of each..

[cathexis]

You're talking about Horseshoe Theory and there are very few two-word phrases that will get leftists online as riled up as that one.

I just feel like capitalism is totally fine when it comes to discretionary consumption items, but it never should have been applied to staple items, justice, health, education, warfighting, or politics.

And it seems willfully obtuse to insist capitalism has to be all or nothing. To insist that if we take profit out of life-or-death matters then the next thing you know we'll all have matching government haircuts and uniform scrubs, is disingenuous to the extreme, but we fall all over ourselves trying to disprove it..

The "mistake" of the mainstream dems (mistake in quotes because it is applied with the benefit of the doubt) was in believing that conservatives actually wanted the outcomes they claimed to want. Dems believed conservatives would work with them if they could get to a result that lay somewhere within the scope of what they could find tolerable.

This was never going to be the case, as conservatives don't actually want any of the things they talk about. They just want wealth and power. So dems compromised themselves making a good faith argument to a bad faith premise.

As i said, "mistake" gives the benefit of the doubt. Wealthy people are wealthy people first and foremost. To me it seems like the past 30 years have been "capitalism with patriarchy and white supremacy" vs "capitalism with ladies."

"Capitalism with ladies" is the lesser of two evils, by far (freedom from forced birth is still a pretty good deal), but neither party wants equality.

Actually, my assertion was that the Horseshoe Model failed to accept that the Right Anarchist and Left Anarchist extremists had very little ideological difference. I maintain that it is a full circle.

Looking at the public response to those tiny factions is one of many variables that can give one an idea of the current and possibly predict the political heading. I am referring to very small changes occurring in those extremist parties. Sometimes, it can be difficult to find the data needed for this analysis.

A possibility that I see happening would be that the Right wing momentum continue leading us fully into Fascism. The Constitutional checks and balances have not, thus far, kept this regime in check. However, The House needs a chance to do it's work. The Founding Fathers could not have anticipated a regime like Trump's getting into office. So far, the Checks and Balances have not held him back. He removed transgender persons from serving by Tweet. The environment is at risk by Executive Orders. Now they have Roe v Wade in the crosshairs. Not to mention all else he's done.

If we are to escape the path we are following, we need a strong no-nonsense, statesman/stateswoman; however, thus far there's no one who fits my definition of a candidate for President who can reverse our course abruptly. I believe this individual needs to have a great deal of experience in terms of government (or executive) leadership, and be someone other countries can relate to.

[nhplowboi]

I feel like such a hypocrite because I was all for Beto in the Senate but I have to say ….um no as my president.

[MsTinkerbelly]

I feel like such a hypocrite because I was all for Beto in the Senate but I have to say ….um no as my president.

Well, since so many put so much store in how many dollars were raised in the first 24 hours, Beto raised more (6.1 million) than Bernie, and raised money from all 50 states.

So I guess money raising ability is what we all get to judge Presidental worthiness by these days.

** said with tongue in cheek.

[nhplowboi]

lol....yes it is so often all about the $$$$$$!! I am thinking I was Beto so he would get some real time experience and after that I wanted to see how he faired in the bigger time. I do not feel he is ready to run our country...….likable but not presidential.

[Martina]

Today Beto seemed to be taking a step back from Medicare for all.

Recent polls suggest Trump's popularity is on the rise. Scary.

I support Bernie. If it's not Bernie, I honestly don't care that much which candidate gets the nomination. I dislike Corey Booker. But I've changed my mind about not voting for him. I'll vote for any Dem. But I just don't care much who wins if it's not Bernie.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Today Beto seemed to be taking a step back from Medicare for all.

Recent polls suggest Trump's popularity is on the rise. Scary.

I support Bernie. If it's not Bernie, I honestly don't care that much which candidate gets the nomination. I dislike Corey Booker. But I've changed my mind about not voting for him. I'll vote for any Dem. But I just don't care much who wins if it's not Bernie.

I can’t post articles for some reason, but there was one out today that dealt with a news source holding back a story about Beto and the hacking group he belonged to in college and beyond, in order to help recently in attempting to defeat Ted Cruz.

Too much baggage for me, but like you, I will vote for anyone running against Trump. I still feel Kamala is a better candidate, but Beto is being promoted by the media as the next coming. Beto is also unemcumbered by job responsibilities, and can campaign heavily before everyone else is able to dedicate the time.

The article is by Reuters news

[nhplowboi]

Today Beto seemed to be taking a step back from Medicare for all.

Recent polls suggest Trump's popularity is on the rise. Scary.

I support Bernie. If it's not Bernie, I honestly don't care that much which candidate gets the nomination. I dislike Corey Booker. But I've changed my mind about not voting for him. I'll vote for any Dem. But I just don't care much who wins if it's not Bernie.

Hmmm polls. Have to say I do not take much stock in them anymore. They are great for getting my BP up but I have to say there is no way I am believing this is how our country thinks. A 30 percent base of knuckleheads can not skew polls that badly.

[Martina]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/18/tulsi-gabbard-2020-progressive-steve-bannon-right

I have to say she might be one I could not vote for if she got the nomination. Strong scent of crazy coming from her.

[nhplowboi]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/18/tulsi-gabbard-2020-progressive-steve-bannon-right

I have to say she might be one I could not vote for if she got the nomination. Strong scent of crazy coming from her.

I did not know what to think of her when she first came on the scene, other than knowing she is a "reformed" gay basher. Then I heard she went to Syria (a couple of years ago) and had a visit with Assad. Can we say that seems a little ODD?! Now when asked, she refuses to say Assad is a war criminal..... that is all I needed to make up my mind about her.

[Gráinne]

Jussie Smollet : got an opinion on how this is unfolding?

is this legitimate political fodder?

The prosecutor (and Smollet's mother) are close friends with the Obamas. This smells like the Obamas, or someone very high up at their instruction, made a call. It stinks.

That puts them very closely connected to two of the biggest political scandals in American history.

I was so excited when he was elected (and reelected). Wow.

I can already hear the name-calling begin. I'm sure this is the most unpopular opinion on the board.

[Martina]

What scandals?

[kittygrrl]

The prosecutor (and Smollet's mother) are close friends with the Obamas. This smells like the Obamas, or someone very high up at their instruction, made a call. It stinks.

That puts them very closely connected to two of the biggest political scandals in American history.

I was so excited when he was elected (and reelected). Wow.

I can already hear the name-calling begin. I'm sure this is the most unpopular opinion on the board. name calling as in you're a Republican?..i don't think it's helpful to spread rumors if you don't have first hand knowledge..why don't you just stick to the facts? For example Rahm Emanuel was Pres Obama's chief of Staff in White House...so what favor is Obama asking of him?...what you're saying is wrong..how would you like it if someone spread rumors about you without having any actual knowledge, just gossip..it's ridiculous.

[Gráinne]

What scandals?

The Russian collusion lie and now this.

[C0LLETTE]

name calling as in you're a Republican?..i don't think it's helpful to spread rumors if you don't have first hand knowledge..why don't you just stick to the facts? For example Rahm Emanuel was Pres Obama's chief of Staff in White House...so what favor is Obama asking of him?...what you're saying is wrong..how would you like it if someone spread rumors about you without having any actual knowledge, just gossip..it's ridiculous.

Nothing personal but I do think just about anything posted here is gossip without having any actual knowledge...what else do we have
?

[kittygrrl]

Nothing personal but I do think just about anything posted here is gossip without having any actual knowledge...what else do we have
?If you have opinions about this candidate or that one I've no problem listening but i have no use for malicious gossip. I won't indulge or put up with it in my personal life, why should i listen to it in a political thread? It's dirty, and it's not based on fact. People who indulge in it usually lead boring lives themselves so they must fantasize about yours or some other poor soul and cannot articulate on their own an individual, intelligent opinion based on what they have seen, observed or experienced. It's also very annoying and boring. that's why.

[Martina]

The Russian collusion lie and now this.

You're saying Jesse Smollett is one of the biggest scandals in US history?

Who is connected? Smollett's mother, the prosecutor, Obama? How is any of them connected to the accusation of Russian collusion?

[MsTinkerbelly]

The Russian collusion lie and now this.

Wow.

There was plenty of collusion and lying by the Presidents campaign and crew, or are the felonies all lies? The Mueller report is not out yet, so I’m saving my gossip and suppositions for the actual facts.

[Martina]

I am a Bernie supporter first and last, but when Kamala talks about raises for teachers, my mouth starts to water. Love hearing that.

[charley]

I think it might be more appropriate to call The Mueller Report the Barr memo, or rather better Barrnotes... you do remember Coles Notes, Barnes' Notes? :)
Saw that on Colbert...

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wnx2RnhguUE/maxresdefault.jpg

[Martina]

A quarterly FEC fundraising deadline is tonight. I don't understand these or why they are important, whether matching funds are determined or what? I googled, but could not figure it out in the time I wanted to spend.

ANYWAY, it did motivate me to donate to Bernie and Kamala and smaller amounts to Buttigieg and Warren. I guess if you aren't already donating, you might want to consider doing it today since they are telling us this deadline matters.

I just gave a couple bucks to Hickenlooper, too. Hey, he owns a brew pub, and he's awkward as hell. That's enough to recommend him at this stage.

[BullDog]

Here's an op-ed from a Republican strategist:

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-losing-2020-20190331-qz6zaomkfndxlleg75yhdqyvou-story.html

I agree with this 1000% percent. And yes most Democrats - especially Progressives - will hate it, but I think he is right. Spot on. Democrats had better be ready for a bloodbath against Trump and go for the jugular on the Mueller Report phony Barr cover up - otherwise, we just look like wimps.

[Kätzchen]

I wholeheartedly believe the author of Bulldog's article: This is no doubt a Culture War of epic proportions.

This is the defining moment of American Society: Do we keep letting White Nationalism's Toxic Culture reign supreme or do we hold all of them accountable by ousting every single one of them from their comfortable beds of proverbial sin, which places American Society and societies around the world in danger of annihilation?


I'm all for seeing them being kicked off the cliff of the proverbial planet, not just booted to the curb.


Thanks for the timely article, Bulldog.

[dark_crystal]

Here's an op-ed from a Republican strategist:

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-losing-2020-20190331-qz6zaomkfndxlleg75yhdqyvou-story.html

I agree with this 1000% percent. And yes most Democrats - especially Progressives - will hate it, but I think he is right. Spot on. Democrats had better be ready for a bloodbath against Trump and go for the jugular on the Mueller Report phony Barr cover up - otherwise, we just look like wimps.

Some quotes:
Trump may not be smarter than a toaster oven, but he’s going to be surrounded by people with brains, money and an existential desire to win.

They know that boutique policies in a Walmart nation won’t sell.

<snip>

Winning the AOC primary is all the rage, but in poll after poll voters tell us what they want their elected leaders to talk about and focus on. Even the big-picture issues Democrats think are game-changing winners often come with massive electoral trade-offs.

<snip>

Talk more like Mike Rowe, and less like AOC, and watch the people who switched from Obama to Trump take another look. A little more Bubba and a little less stern-faced, super-woke speech commissar.

<snip>

The notion that they have to choose between having a positive, progressive vision and beating Trump six ways to Sunday is simply false. They need to give Trump hell and put forward their own ideas. But the ideas had damn well not be subject to any simplistic left-wing litmus test.

<snip>

This is not a nation of socialists, no matter how far and how fast millennials are leaning left.

Buttigieg got in a whole lot of trouble over the weekend for using the term "coastal elites"

Spare us the lectures from Democratic candidates about how Democratic voters are the problem (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/29/spare-us-lectures-democratic-candidates-about-how-democratic-voters-are-problem/?utm_term=.6e93fde55a92)

If you thought we were past the tiresome “How can Democrats appeal to Trump-loving Trump voters in Trump Country?” conversation, I’m going to disappoint you. And I’d like to use some recent comments from South Bend, Ind., Mayor and presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg to illustrate how problematic the discussion among Democrats is when it comes to thinking about different areas of the country and what kind of people live where.

<snip>

There’s a bit more to the discussion, but it goes on in that vein. Buttigieg’s intentions are good, since he wants to promote mutual understanding and common purpose. But he frames the problem as one that stems from condescending liberals who don’t sufficiently appreciate the lives and perspectives of people in the Midwest. In other words, the divide that exists is the fault of liberals alone. If they could just do more to understand the people who wind up voting for someone like Donald Trump, that would be the path to achieving unity.

<snip>

Just to be clear, I'm not saying you can't find liberals who are condescending toward conservatives and the places where they congregate, because you can. And resentment over that condescension is a powerful political force, in no small part because Republicans and conservative media spend so much time telling conservatives that elitist liberals are looking down on them.

But you can also find lots of conservatives who are contemptuous toward liberals and the places where they live. Yet if a Democrat ever insulted the “heartland,” there’d be hell to pay, while Republicans insult heavily Democratic places all the time.

i fought with a whole bunch of tweeters online about this bc the comments to the WaPo article were full of ppl saying "I'm a coastal elite and my state has farms, how dare he!"

But within a few minutes you also had stuff like "rural voters don't even know what's going on in the next county" and "all the red states care about is if they can still marry their cousins" and, like, that was what Buttigieg was talking about.

Every time the Texas lege does something heinous there is a whole flood of blue-staters saying "why don't they secede already, who needs them?"

The attitude that sees the flyover states as cousin-marrying bumpkins is what he was talking about, but the commenters chose to interpret it as narrowly as possible and claim he accused them of low awareness of heartland issues.

There is a huge swath of Trumpers that don't car about anything except "owning the libs" and every time "the libs" play dumb about their snottiness, we feed that movement.

[dark_crystal]

i see i typo and i don't car :superfunny:

[C0LLETTE]

Here's an op-ed from a Republican strategist:

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-losing-2020-20190331-qz6zaomkfndxlleg75yhdqyvou-story.html

I agree with this 1000% percent. And yes most Democrats - especially Progressives - will hate it, but I think he is right. Spot on. Democrats had better be ready for a bloodbath against Trump and go for the jugular on the Mueller Report phony Barr cover up - otherwise, we just look like wimps.


RE: the Op-Ed.

I couldn't have said it better but I've come close a few times and been beaten half to death in here for having said it.

Glad to have you back, BullDog

[Martina]

I'm sorry, but I truly truly wish Texas would secede. It can be one of those Mexican countries.

[Martina]

A left leaning populism is going to resonate more with disenchanted Trumpists than another corporate Dem. They would not have voted Trump in if they wanted more if that.

Mainstream Dems flatter themselves if they think their recycled centrist politics appeal to anyone but themselves. They do not.

[C0LLETTE]

I'm sorry, but I truly truly wish Texas would secede. It can be one of those Mexican countries.

Apologies and not wishing to be rude, but does Mexico have more than one country?

[BullDog]

I think Progressives are just as tone deaf thinking people want what they want.

I agree with the Op-Ed that Sanders (and also Warren) would lose in a 45-state wipeout.

There are not enough young people or previously non-registered voters who ever vote enough to save the day - but keep trying it is worth it. Just don't expect that to do it.

I think trying to win over the true Trump voters is a complete losing proposition too. The true Trump believers are never going to vote with us

It really is about those in the center, although you don't necessarily have to appeal with re-hashed ideas I don't think. They are the ones who actually vote like clockwork.

The road to the Presidency currently runs through the Rust Belt. I don't believe lying to them that we are going to bring their jobs back is a good idea since it is a lie. We aren't rolling back the clock to the 1950s, and it's not women's fault, gays fault, people of color's fault, etc. that people don't have jobs and its divisive.

People can rail against the trade policies all they want, and things probably could be better but we live in a global economy and that's never going back. There are countries everywhere that can do things better than us and cheaper than us. So unless you want to overthrow capitalism, it is what it is.

I do believe workers need to be re-educated for the new economy but it is also true that there is plenty of "blue collar work" that could be done where you don't need a Master's degree in public policy from Harvard to get the job done. Our roads and bridges and buildings are all crumbling and in disrepair. If people are going to run screaming from the room about big government programs for it then figure out a way to do it in partnership with private businesses. Whatever. There are plenty of people who want to work and plenty of work that could be done. I don't see why it couldn't be figured out.

[cathexis]

Folks from the Rust Belt won't "cotton" to being lied to again. They're gonna be very cautious this time around. Don't think Trump will fool the region again. People from the Rust Belt have a real thing about being labeled as gullible.
Those jobs stolen from Carrier in IN still leave a bad taste in many Mid-Western mouths.
Not less Harvard speak and more Bubba. Less of either, and more common sense. Maybe a little left politics may be good medicine right now.

[C0LLETTE]

Mayor Pete: "I have enormous respect or her (Hillary Clinton) ".

There you have the guts and courage that would have won the 2016 election for Democrats instead of the tepid chickenshit crap that made them run backwards from a strong female cause she couldn't (maybe ) tick off every box. And they let Republicans pounded that into voters' heads.

The Democrats need to get on the offensive; stop eating their young, their old, their female candidates, and anyone else the Republicans convince them to eat.

Roy Cohn understood it.
Donald Trump understands it.
Democrats are still wandering around the May Pole with fairy sparkler sticks up their asses.

[Martina]

Mayor Pete was backtracking after some Clinton minion attacked him for pointing out mistakes she made early in her 2016 campaign. It was idiotic. He pointed out how her campaign had tried the America is already great, there's nothing wrong here, stuff. Remember when Obama was stumping for her saying America was already great, that there are only "pockets" that haven't benefitted from the recovery. They stopped that pretty fast when it didn't play and when Bernie started kicking their ass.

So the former Clinton campaign staff person accused Mayor Pete of not thinking America is great, implying he's not patriotic yadda yadda. That's obviously not what Pete meant, and the asshole Clintonite wouldn't have cared if that HAD been what was meant. He was stung by the criticism of their losing campaign and struck back with that insincere manipulative bullshit. What a fucking asshole. So Pete backtracked saying oh we all love Hillary. (Yeah, I bet Mayor Pete loves Hillary as much as I do.)

[BullDog]

Yes, wish we could just be unapologetic and just go with our strength.

I would love to see Kamala Harris' tough prosecutorial style go up against Trump for a year and leave him in a puddle. Why yes I am a woman, a person of color, well-educated, tough (call me a bitch that's fine with me) and have big policy ideas for education and other things, and you are bumbling, lying, corrupt fool. Now, let's get back to the American people and what's best for them, shall we.

Lol, I still remember Jeff Sessions playing the country bumpkin and saying how she was making him "nervous."

Yeah, you should be.

Sadly, I don't know if America is "ready" for her, Sanders, or anyone else different than usual. Ugh. We shall see. Dems better go hard on the Mueller report. We just need to beat Trump whatever it takes.




Mayor Pete: "I have enormous respect or her (Hillary Clinton) ".

There you have the guts and courage that would have won the 2016 election for Democrats instead of the tepid chickenshit crap that made them run backwards from a strong female cause she couldn't (maybe ) tick off every box. And they let Republicans pounded that into voters' heads.

The Democrats need to get on the offensive; stop eating their young, their old, their female candidates, and anyone else the Republicans convince them to eat.

Roy Cohn understood it.
Donald Trump understands it.
Democrats are still wandering around the May Pole with fairy sparkler sticks up their asses.

[Martina]

Apologies and not wishing to be rude, but does Mexico have more than one country?

It's an allusion to the Fox News gaffe.

[kittygrrl]

I think Dems made a big mistake believing everything hinged on Mueller...he was there looking for crimes..collusion isn't a crime ...and i think impeachment would be another huge mistake..it's too close to the election...the Congress needs to hold hearings and let people listen and decide for themselves...no matter how bad it gets..keep our cool and be reasonable and listen to their people back home...fyi-NOBODY back home really cares about Russia's influence much...that's just a fact...we are just too busy trying to keep ahead of our bills and kids.....most are not political junkies like the people in this thread..that's intellectuals...and most are just regular Joes..sad fact i guess but thats real life...

[cathexis]

I think Dems made a big mistake believing everything hinged on Mueller...he was there looking for crimes..collusion isn't a crime ...and i think impeachment would be another huge mistake..it's too close to the election...the Congress needs to hold hearings and let people listen and decide for themselves...no matter how bad it gets..keep our cool and be reasonable and listen to their people back home...fyi-NOBODY back home really cares about Russia's influence much...that's just a fact...we are just too busy trying to keep ahead of our bills and kids.....most are not political junkies like the people in this thread..that's intellectuals...and most are just regular Joes..sad fact i guess but thats real life...

kittygrrl- Seems impeachment has been your LAST option all along. We both know what a can of worms could open with Pence's history of homophobia and "right to life" positions. Behind that placid demeanor is a man aggressive about his issues.
We don't need to shear that wolf.

[dark_crystal]

I'm sorry, but I truly truly wish Texas would secede. It can be one of those Mexican countries.

I'm fine with becoming Mexican, but an independent Texas would be The Handmaids Tale. 40% of us are blue. Another huge chunk are disfranchised and/or undocumented. The majority of Texas's inhabitants would suffer.

[Martina]

I'm fine with becoming Mexican, but an independent Texas would be The Handmaids Tale. 40% of us are blue. Another huge chunk are disfranchised and/or undocumented. The majority of Texas's inhabitants would suffer.

If it were realistic to get rid of Texas, I think I might sacrifice y'all. You could move to Georgia and turn it from purple to blue. Just a thought. I would so love to say bye bye to Texas. Just as a teacher -- the effect Texas has had on text books alone. Texas is the big stupid bully of American culture. Proudly ignorant, but unlike say, Alabama or Oklahoma, influential. And truly don't many Texans actually want to secede. My response to that is "Bye, Felicia."

[charley]

Trump is forgetting words, couldn't remember the word "origins", so said "oranges" - twice... also said that his father was born in Germany, which was false, since his father was born in USA, it was his gf who was born in Germany (if I remember correctly), early signs of dementia ... - his reward, which he has done to himself :)

so, do you really think he will be able to run for a 2nd term?

[dark_crystal]

If it were realistic to get rid of Texas, I think I might sacrifice y'all. You could move to Georgia and turn it from purple to blue. Just a thought. I would so love to say bye bye to Texas. Just as a teacher -- the effect Texas has had on text books alone. Texas is the big stupid bully of American culture. Proudly ignorant, but unlike say, Alabama or Oklahoma, influential. And truly don't many Texans actually want to secede. My response to that is "Bye, Felicia."

We're America's own Saudi Arabia. Primitive people made incidentally rich and powerful by a mineral coincidence, behaving primitively with great power.

My mom is a pro-life Southern Baptist young-Earth creationist, but she was also a 2nd grade teacher and not a fan of the Religious Right takeover of all school boards in the 1980s. She subscribed to their values but she thought they should leave education to educators, felt their decrees on the three R's, at least, if not science lol, should be evidence-based and were not.

But that takeover was a real thing that happened-- the religious right intentionally and methodically focused on infiltrating school boards and those people are all still in place.

The reason i spend an hour each month sitting next to a creepy pro-life Southern Baptist young-Earth creationist Board President is because he was part of that movement and actually got to be mayor, then retired to my board so he can make sure we have creationist materials. We're just lucky he doesn't notice us shelving them under religion and not science. We've had him thirteen years and we could have him thirteen more.

That was a digression.

What i came here to say is that whenever "coastal elites" bag on the red states and someone calls their attention to the always-sizeable percentage of blue voters in those states, there is always someone saying "they should just move, then."

Leaving aside the many reasons why that might not be easy for individuals (disabled parents, for us), it's a terrible idea electorally. The more we concentrate in specific states, the less electoral college votes we have access to.

Anyway--speaking of moving to more progressive places-- Houston is a place of refuge for all of Mississippi's queers, because their parents are quadruple times scarier than ours. We're very fortunate it wasn't them with the oil. Queer Mississippi needs Houston to keep being safe.

[cathexis]

:chocolate:If it were realistic to get rid of Texas, I think I might sacrifice y'all. You could move to Georgia and turn it from purple to blue. Just a thought. I would so love to say bye bye to Texas. Just as a teacher -- the effect Texas has had on text books alone. Texas is the big stupid bully of American culture. Proudly ignorant, but unlike say, Alabama or Oklahoma, influential. And truly don't many Texans actually want to secede. My response to that is "Bye, Felicia."

Trump is forgetting words, couldn't remember the word "origins", so said "oranges" - twice... also said that his father was born in Germany, which was false, since his father was born in USA, it was his gf who was born in Germany (if I remember correctly), early signs of dementia ... - his reward, which he has done to himself :)

so, do you really think he will be able to run for a 2nd term?

Trump may be an narcissistic, a bully, ruining the US both here and abroad, and the worst president we've encountered; however, tarnishing the reputation of the entire State of Texas as refuse one wouldn't mind giving back to the Mexicans. Many soldiers died taking and defending the Louisiana Purchase, also this dishonors all the Texans who have fought and died in our country's wars. Texas is our issue to deal with. Blame a state as large as Texas for a bunch of yahoos is like saying that all New Yorkers are rude. Even if it is believed that folks from the city need a bit more civility, NY is a large state like Texas with populations of people who don't deserve that sort of sullied reputation.
If that is really how people feel, let's chop off CA, what about FL-the keys have wanted to secede for decades. Hell, we can chop up the country to politically impotent blocks. Sounds just like what Trump would love.

A person's medical problems have no business being discussed in the public arena. Personally, I think Rosenstein didn't go far enough into FBI discussion for removal of Trump. Sure, he's mentally unfit for president, and needs to go but there are procedures and committees elected by the people empowered to consult experts as witnesses for those Amendment 22 issues. Did America splash Reagan's Alzheimer's disease all over the press daily. Who here can diagnose Dementia based on film clips and interviews, I sure can't. Not certain a Psychiatrist or Neurologist could make a spot decision like that. How about FDR's physical limitations. I know the history of the 22nd Amendment, but it could have (and did) happen during our Presidential history. We probably should have written it clearer into the Constitution, but we didn't and can't act as though we had.

[C0LLETTE]

Sanders is a voracious tapeworm in the Democratic gut.

[Martina]

Sanders is a voracious tapeworm in the Democratic gut.

That's unnecessary. Have some basic civility. Especially when it's not your country. He's a US Senator.

[Martina]

Obviously, Texas will not be leaving the Union. I'm not serious. Nor would I expect anyone to move. I'm aware that Houston is a relative oasis of tolerance and diversity. One of my closest friends happily lives there. ALTHOUGH -- recently she was transporting some friends of a friend when they announced they'd never met a gay person. She had to say, "Well, you have now." And she very kindly answered these Southern Baptists' questions and educated them in the gentlest way. I would have put them out of the car.

Re California, I'd be ecstatic if coastal California were its own country. People talk about it.

We're America's own Saudi Arabia. Primitive people made incidentally rich and powerful by a mineral coincidence, behaving primitively with great power.

My mom is a pro-life Southern Baptist young-Earth creationist, but she was also a 2nd grade teacher and not a fan of the Religious Right takeover of all school boards in the 1980s. She subscribed to their values but she thought they should leave education to educators, felt their decrees on the three R's, at least, if not science lol, should be evidence-based and were not.

But that takeover was a real thing that happened-- the religious right intentionally and methodically focused on infiltrating school boards and those people are all still in place.

The reason i spend an hour each month sitting next to a creepy pro-life Southern Baptist young-Earth creationist Board President is because he was part of that movement and actually got to be mayor, then retired to my board so he can make sure we have creationist materials. We're just lucky he doesn't notice us shelving them under religion and not science. We've had him thirteen years and we could have him thirteen more.

That was a digression.

What i came here to say is that whenever "coastal elites" bag on the red states and someone calls their attention to the always-sizeable percentage of blue voters in those states, there is always someone saying "they should just move, then."

Leaving aside the many reasons why that might not be easy for individuals (disabled parents, for us), it's a terrible idea electorally. The more we concentrate in specific states, the less electoral college votes we have access to.

Anyway--speaking of moving to more progressive places-- Houston is a place of refuge for all of Mississippi's queers, because their parents are quadruple times scarier than ours. We're very fortunate it wasn't them with the oil. Queer Mississippi needs Houston to keep being safe.

[Martina]

Re not scaring the center, we've tried accommodating them, and it didn't work. Moreover, the center SUPPORTS Bernie's policies. It's not just that the Democrats are posing as progressives to win the primary. The country supports most of the progressive program as poll after poll has shown.

This is not the Clinton era as 2016 proves. It really is time for real change. We might not get it, but it's so obvious -- the Trump victory proves it -- that Americans are sick of the government not representing their interests. And Democrats have been as guilty of favoring elites as Republicans.

[Martina]

My own plan for a California secession includes forcing the entirety of Silicon Valley to move to LA. We would keep them in the state, forcing them for the first time to pay taxes. But the outsize influence they have on the Bay Area would be dwarfed by the much bigger LA and environs. Most plans have Western Oregon and Washington included in the new country. I'm ok with that. But they are going to have to work on the lily whiteness problem.

[kittygrrl]

funny we should be talking about succession because i can see it happening twenty or thirty years from now..unless we all agree to homogenize...with artificial intelligence that might become a reality..if people begin to choose linking with ai..it would be scary in one way but our world might avoid blowing up...i doubt on our own we can actually manage not destroying ourselves at some point..a little off point...sigh...

...so, i will say Bernie has 900,000 donations or something like that...he is my least favorite candidate...he would love it if Biden decided not to run...he would be just fine if that happened..i'm not saying he doesn't have ethics, just none where politics are concerned(from what i've observed) also....

Beto is getting annoying..j/s

[C0LLETTE]

That's unnecessary. Have some basic civility. Especially when it's not your country. He's a US Senator.

"The “Sanders would have won” crowd will have their chance to make their case, but forget it. Sanders is a parasitic worm eating the Democratic Party from the inside out, and Democrats should get it through their heads quickly: nominating a revolutionary Red Diaper socialist for the presidency would result in a 1984-style wipeout." RICK WILSON

Please write your complaint to the NY Daily News opinion page. I do think Wilson is an American.

And please lay off the repeated references to me being Canadian. You seem to have your own "personal" Canadian here, who posted a very nasty attack on me to which I chose not to respond and who applauds every silly post you make without any word of complaint from you or mention of nationality.

Go slam someone else. Far as I know, there is no rule here that only Americans can post or that only people you agree with or self-righteously label "civil"can post here.

Want less comment on your politics? Stop promoting regime change and political interference in just about every corner of this planet.

[Kätzchen]

Sanders is a voracious tapeworm in the Democratic gut.

I happen to agree with you, COLLETTE. I fell for the Bernie charisma the first time around. It won't happen again.

[Martina]

And please lay off the repeated references to me being Canadian. You seem to have your own "personal" Canadian here, who posted a very nasty attack on me to which I chose not to respond and who applauds every silly post you make without any word of complaint from you or mention of nationality.

Go slam someone else. Far as I know, there is no rule here that only Americans can post or that only people you agree with or self-righteously label "civil"can post here.

Want less comment on your politics? Stop promoting regime change and political interference in just about every corner of this planet.

I have said nothing about Canada. I have nothing bad to say about Canada. I have said that you are not a U.S. citizen, which makes your rudeness about our politics particularly rude, especially when you clearly don't even stay abreast of the news. It's just an axe you have to grind, such as your point about our promoting regime change. You didn't mention a specific event, but characterized the U.S. in general terms. That is your take on U.S. foreign policy. Whatever merit the argument has, you are using it to say the US is criminal therefore you can be as abusive as you want in your comments about it. Well, no. It's a big complex country, the news about which you barely seem to follow. Sure you can say whatever you please, but you will be recognized as rude and abusive in your discourse.

[C0LLETTE]

You characterise my posts as "rude and abusive" ( in and of itself rude and abusive ), claim that I barely seem to follow the news and clearly don't even stay abreast of the news. Well, rather than my trying to respond to those nebulous inchoate charges by taking on the impossible task of telling you everything I know about American politics, why don't you tell me everything I don't know...that should show you how empty and impossible your post is.

As for regime change, it's rather sad that I have to offer you information and examples of American foreign policy but here goes:

"They say it's a mark of insanity to do the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.

So what does it tell us about the political establishment of the United States that it repeatedly pursues the same horribly destructive foreign policy?

I'm talking about "regime change" — the idea that the proper response to a conflict with a foreign country is to overthrow its government, on the assumption that whatever follows the (sometimes literal) decapitation will be both a net improvement for the people who live there and geopolitically advantageous for the United States.

This idea is affirmed by a remarkably broad spectrum of powerful people in and around the nation's capital. You can hear arguments in its favor during Republican and Democratic administrations, among leading members of Congress and prominent senators, from the richest donors to both parties, and within the bipartisan foreign policy establishment. It shaped decisions during the hawkish administration of George W. Bush and the supposedly more restrained administration of Barack Obama. It influenced thinking in the McCain, Romney, and Rubio campaigns no less than the policy assumptions of Hillary Clinton and her leading advisers.

And now we know that it even plays an important role in the supposedly anti-interventionist Trump administration, at least when it comes to Iran. In recent days Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security Adviser John Bolton, and even President Trump himself have hurled barbed threats at the Iranian leadership, indicating a strong preference to see, not the establishment of a mutually beneficial relationship, but a change of regime in the country. As Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary during the Bush administration, put it in an appearance on Fox News, "The more unstable we can help Iran become, the better it is to actually secure peace if we can get rid of that theological regime one day."

This is foolish. There is no reason to think that aiming to change the Iranian "regime" will lead to positive results.

The instinct to seek the overthrow of antagonistic governments spans not just ideologies and parties. It also stretches back in time. During the Cold War, the U.S. often pursued this strategy by using the CIA and other groups to foment coups against regimes we considered too friendly to the Soviet Union or communist China, or too hostile to American economic interests more generally. The results were often bad for the people in those countries, who frequently ended up living under dictators or contending with civil wars or other forms of unrest.

Since the end of the Cold War, we've increasingly favored a more overt and aggressive policy of regime change — first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq, then in Libya, and now, possibly, in Iran. (Along the way, a loud chorus of people during the Obama administration clamored to get Syria added to this list as well.)

Have any of these acts of military destabilization turned out well for anyone?

Overthrowing the government of Afghanistan was the most justified, since the Taliban had given refuge to Osama bin Laden and refused to turn him over after 9/11. But the U.S. military has now been stuck fighting there for over 16 years, with no end in sight, and with the Taliban constantly sowing chaos and threatening to make a political comeback (which is something we've now becoming more open to accepting). In the end, the two most likely outcomes of American involvement in Afghanistan are an interminable semi-occupation underwriting an unstable government contending with a permanent insurgency — or a return to a version of the very fundamentalist rule we deposed more than a decade and a half ago.

But that's nothing compared to the utter disaster of regime change in Iraq. Life under Saddam Hussein may have been awful, but it's hard to imagine a scenario in which the continuation of his rule would have led to the deaths of 600,000 Iraqis (along with roughly 5,000 Americans), the displacement of millions more, the destabilization of the region (including the empowering of Iran and collapse of Syria into a civil war, the latter of which has led to another half-million deaths as well as a flood of migrants and refugees that has helped to catalyze a right-wing anti-immigrant movement across Europe), and the formation of a new terrorist organization (ISIS) that managed to surpass in brutality the one that launched the 9/11 attacks (al Qaeda).

The Iraq War has been a perfect storm of unintended, awful consequences.

But that didn't keep a Democratic president who ran for office in part on his opposition to the Iraq War from making the very same misjudgments as George W. Bush before him. In Libya, Obama overthrew the tyrannical government of Moammar Gadhafi, which cheered American do-gooders, but he made few if any arrangements to guarantee order. The perfectly predictable result was chaos in the resulting power vacuum. Subsequent years have brought economic collapse, the rise of tribal warfare, instability, violence, and even the return of the slave trade — not to mention even more of those migrants and refugees headed to Europe across the Mediterranean.

Given the abysmal track record of regime change, why do our policymakers opt for it again and again?

For one thing, there's a distinctly American form of arrogance and hubris. We like to think we're entitled to rid ourselves of nuisances (instead of learning to live with them) — and we also tend to presume that we're capable of fixing every problem with a minimal exertion of effort. That second assumption is so deeply embedded in our national consciousness that every time it ends up refuted by experience, we find ourselves shocked as if for the very first time by the recalcitrance of reality.

Then there's our very American paranoia about government power and tendency to take our own stability for granted. These lead us to overestimate the awfulness of authoritarianism (the draconian imposition of order) and vastly underestimate the horror of chaos (the absence of order). As a result, we invariably presume that removing a dictator produces a net improvement.

But it often doesn't. Just ask anyone who's endured life in Iraq or Libya since we liberated them into the arms of anarchy.

Finally, there's our most unconservative national trait: an incorrigible optimism about the benefits of change and consequent refusal to entertain the possibility that a bad situation might be made even worse by overturning it.

And now, after so many foolish mistakes and so few signs of self-reflection, we're contemplating bringing our magic touch to Iran. We really must be out of our minds." THE WEEK July 2018

If you disagree with the above contentions or the source, let me know but please be specific and no more empty accusations til you have some facts and can prove you know better.

If you have some other aspects of American ( or World ) politics you'd like to discuss, I'd be happy to oblige.

[Martina]

If you disagree with the above contentions or the source, let me know but please be specific

Well I really can't respond re the source since you don't tell us the author or title or provide a URL. I looked up the periodical name, The Week, along with the date, but found nothing. So if you want me to respond, YOU'LL have to be more specific.

In any case, I didn't ask to debate you on this. Nor did I contest the truth of the point. What I said was that you are using this issue -- US intervention -- as an excuse to name us as criminals, justifying your endlessly rude comments. That is what you said.

Want less comment on your politics? Stop promoting regime change and political interference in just about every corner of this planet.

[kittygrrl]

i think every country has it's weaknesses..and even though we vote people into running the country they don't necessarily follow what they promised as a candidate to follow...so i can't take responsibility for their mistakes..i do the best i can to elect people who share my ethics and policy ideals and it's always disappointing on some level..none of us live in Utopia so we all live in glass houses. I don't think any of us need to throw rocks j/s

[C0LLETTE]

https://theweek.com/articles/786525/americas-lunatic-lust-regime-change

Now you show me where I name you as " criminals".

Also please respond to my first point:

"You characterise my posts as "rude and abusive" ( in and of itself rude and abusive ), claim that I barely seem to follow the news and clearly don't even stay abreast of the news. Well, rather than my trying to respond to those nebulous inchoate charges by taking on the impossible task of telling you everything I know about American politics, why don't you tell me everything I don't know...that should show you how empty and impossible your post is."

Offer some evidence that I "clearly don't follow the news" otherwise I have to conclude that your insulting "ad hominem" posts are a waste of my time. And that's that.

[MsTinkerbelly]

We are criminals.

We took the land from the original occupants, we have the unmitigated gall to overthrow governments and destabilize world economies, we take what we want and expect everyone to fall inline with our values. We are less than 300 years old, yet we DARE to tell civilizations around for thousands of years how to treat their people or run their countries?

Yes, when asked we step in and protect the world...so there is that.

We are criminals...this is the way we are seen in the rest of the world. No matter how many times we say “yes but we did this”, we have a history of slavery, abuse of native Americans, corruption, mass killings...on and on.

Love it or leave it?

God bless the USA

Pfffft

[C0LLETTE]

i think every country has it's weaknesses..and even though we vote people into running the country they don't necessarily follow what they promised as a candidate to follow...so i can't take responsibility for their mistakes..i do the best i can to elect people who share my ethics and policy ideals and it's always disappointing on some level..none of us live in Utopia so we all live in glass houses. I don't think any of us need to throw rocks j/s

Oh my goodness.
No one is blaming you personally and not every discussion of policy is "rock throwing".

The above quoted article is from an American magazine, written by an American, Damon Linker, who is a senior correspondent at TheWeek.com. He is also a consulting editor at the University of Pennsylvania Press, and a former contributing editor at The New Republic.

There are many many more such views of US foreign policy out there in the ether. I just picked this one to show that I can read.

[Martina]

Offer some evidence that I "clearly don't follow the news" otherwise I have to conclude that your insulting "ad hominem" posts are a waste of my time. And that's that.

I'm not going to comb through your old posts. Good grief. Didn't you just not know about the Fox News Mexican countries thing? Not very important. Who cares about that? But it's pretty endless. If you want, I'll keep track starting now. Actually, no. I'm too lazy. But when I notice one, I'll oblige. I haven't in the past because it would be rude and petty. But if you want, . . .

[C0LLETTE]

We are criminals.

We took the land from the original occupants, we have the unmitigated gall to overthrow governments and destabilize world economies, we take what we want and expect everyone to fall inline with our values. We are less than 300 years old, yet we DARE to tell civilizations around for thousands of years how to treat their people or run their countries?

Yes, when asked we step in and protect the world...so there is that.

We are criminals...this is the way we are seen in the rest of the world. No matter how many times we say “yes but we did this”, we have a history of slavery, abuse of native Americans, corruption, mass killings...on and on.

Love it or leave it?

God bless the USA

Pfffft

I do believe MsTinkerbelly is an American citizen. Me? I'm just sitting here and reading :angel:

[Martina]

Without a doubt, and speaking the truth is valuable. But using history as an excuse to talk trash about an entire group of people is, well, trashy.

Hell, Canada has a pretty dismal history re its Native Peoples. I don't call out the Canadian people with glee as Collette is wont to do re Americans. (And Collette, DON'T ask me to document. Good God. I've seen you demand that someone tell you where you said something when it was on the previous page.) Collette has said about a thousand rude things about Americans. More. Whatever.

We are criminals.

We took the land from the original occupants, we have the unmitigated gall to overthrow governments and destabilize world economies, we take what we want and expect everyone to fall inline with our values. We are less than 300 years old, yet we DARE to tell civilizations around for thousands of years how to treat their people or run their countries?

Yes, when asked we step in and protect the world...so there is that.

We are criminals...this is the way we are seen in the rest of the world. No matter how many times we say “yes but we did this”, we have a history of slavery, abuse of native Americans, corruption, mass killings...on and on.

Love it or leave it?

God bless the USA

Pfffft

[C0LLETTE]

I'm not going to comb through your old posts. Good grief. Didn't you just not know about the Fox News Mexican countries thing? Not very important. Who cares about that? But it's pretty endless. If you want, I'll keep track starting now. Actually, no. I'm too lazy. But when I notice one, I'll oblige. I haven't in the past because it would be rude and petty. But if you want, . . .

Why stop being rude and petty now?

BTW, is watching Fox News, or recognising your oblique references to Fox News, your standard for marking an intelligent well-informed commentator?
Yikes.

[Martina]

The Mexican Countries story was in the New York Times, LA Times, The Post, covered by CNN, MSNBC and probably every US news outlet. *SMH*


BTW, is watching Fox News, or recognising your oblique references to Fox News, your standard for marking an intelligent well-informed commentator?
Yikes.

[C0LLETTE]

Without a doubt, and speaking the truth is valuable. But using history as an excuse to talk trash about an entire group of people is, well, trashy.

Hell, Canada has a pretty dismal history re its Native Peoples. I don't call out the Canadian people with glee as Collette is wont to do re Americans. (And Collette, DON'T ask me to document. Good God. I've seen you demand that someone tell you where you said something when it was on the previous page.) Collette has said about a thousand rude things about Americans. More. Whatever.

Gee Whizz you get more Trumpian by the post...There were billions of people at the inauguration..."Collette has said about a thousand rude things about Americans. More." You even have his flair for deflection.

[charley]

Gee Whizz you get more Trumpian by the post...There were billions of people at the inauguration..."Collette has said about a thousand rude things about Americans. More." You even have his flair for deflection.

calling Martina "Trumpian" is an ad hominem attack...

[C0LLETTE]

but I just gave you an example of her "Trumpianism".

[kittygrrl]

Collette I think Martina actually wants to have a civil discussion about issues...she loves her country even if it's flawed. I don't happen to agree with her but i try to understand her point of view. I don't follow this thread very closing but exchanging ideas is more important then blasting someone for their flawed perceptions..if you want to change minds you don't do it by attacking what they believe currently..i'm learning, you listen

[MsTinkerbelly]

Collette I think Martina actually wants to have a civil discussion about issues...she loves her country even if it's flawed. I don't happen to agree with her but i try to understand her point of view. I don't follow this thread very closing but exchanging ideas is more important then blasting someone for their flawed perceptions..if you want to change minds you don't do it by attacking what they believe currently..i'm learning, you listen

I have to disagree here.

From the beginning of this thread, anyone who has not declared Bernie as their personal savior has been hit with reason after reason why we are wrong, and don’t want liberty and justice for all. Okay, paraphrasing to be sure, dramatic at its best.

Even I was referred to as “trashy”, (see above) like all people who judge the crimes of this country by the things that happened in the past. The past? WTF, how about within the last 20 years!!! Words have meaning, and i’m Fucking tired of having pot shots taken at me for having an opinion.

I told Charley once that as a Canadian they had no right to an opinion. I have been embarrassed every since! We are the only 1st world country that knows next to nothing about the politics of our neighbors; everyone else study’s our politics and Constitution in school!

Can we all get back to the Presidential 2020 race? Can we try? Is all of this arguing and name calling doing anyone any good?

I pledge to get back on topic, can anyone else?

[Martina]

Without a doubt, and speaking the truth is valuable. But using history as an excuse to talk trash about an entire group of people is, well, trashy.



I was referring to Collette who talks trash about Dems, particular politicians, and our process in general. She used to barely conceal her contempt for Butch femme identities. I've never understood why she wants to hang out here since she has so little respect for us.

[charley]

...

I told Charley once that as a Canadian they had no right to an opinion. I have been embarrassed every since!

...



Thank you :)

[cathexis]

Without a doubt, and speaking the truth is valuable. But using history as an excuse to talk trash about an entire group of people is, well, trashy.

Hell, Canada has a pretty dismal history re its Native Peoples. I don't call out the Canadian people with glee as Collette is wont to do re Americans. (And Collette, DON'T ask me to document. Good God. I've seen you demand that someone tell you where you said something when it was on the previous page.) Collette has said about a thousand rude things about Americans. More. Whatever.

Why stop being rude and petty now?

BTW, is watching Fox News, or recognising your oblique references to Fox News, your standard for marking an intelligent well-informed commentator?
Yikes.

Just have a couple of observations to make here.

Martina- we are in a glass house throwing stones. The US Western Expansion was much more brutal to Native Peoples than Canada's. We continue to break treaties, provide healthcare that would be substandard in 3rd world countries, steal land for Capitalist oil pipelines at will, gave Smallpox infected blankets to the Sioux, killed off the Plain's Native food source for sport (read spite) among other atrocities.
The Canadian Western Expansion was far less violent and bloody, yes, land was stolen and people displaced, but as I recall reading, it was not as atrocious as the US.

C0LLETTE- It is common practice for one side of a political position to read/listen to the propaganda of the opposing side to learn their ideologies, tactics, weapons and so forth in order to mount a more effective offense/defense. I frequently listened to Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and read "Alt-Right" websites to get a good idea what the Right was planning. That knowledge makes for a better informed and prepared Leftist. These precepts go back to Sun Tzu in The Art of War. Making use of all intelligence available makes for better decisions. Martina's use of Fox News sources was very prudent.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Just have a couple of observations to make here.

Martina- we are in a glass house throwing stones. The US Western Expansion was much more brutal to Native Peoples than Canada's. We continue to break treaties, provide healthcare that would be substandard in 3rd world countries, steal land for Capitalist oil pipelines at will, gave Smallpox infected blankets to the Sioux, killed off the Plain's Native food source for sport (read spite) among other atrocities.
The Canadian Western Expansion was far less violent and bloody, yes, land was stolen and people displaced, but as I recall reading, it was not as atrocious as the US.

C0LLETTE- It is common practice for one side of a political position to read/listen to the propaganda of the opposing side to learn their ideologies, tactics, weapons and so forth in order to mount a more effective offense/defense. I frequently listened to Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and read "Alt-Right" websites to get a good idea what the Right was planning. That knowledge makes for a better informed and prepared Leftist. These precepts go back to Sun Tzu in The Art of War. Making use of all intelligence available makes for better decisions. Martina's use of Fox News sources was very prudent.

Despite wanting to hurl something through the TV every time we watch, we make it a point to watch at least one broadcast of Foxnews everyday. Ugg

[Medusa]

Martina and Collette-

You both have been told a number of times to ignore each other and yet here we are yet again with multiple reported posts and a shit show.

I have received more reports than I care to count this week about the level (or lack thereof) of adult communication in this thread and I’m to the point that I’m ready to shut this thread down or outright ban all political discussion because wrangling people and constantly asking people to be respectful is wearing the Mod team out.

Besides, it’s toxicAF and I’m just not interested in repeating myself over and over.

But here’s what I’m going to say instead: It is literally the SAME FEW PEOPLE getting reported over and over and over and rather than shut discussion down, I’m just going to put those few people on lengthy time-outs.

And when I say lengthy, I mean enough time away from this space that you’ll either learn to respect the people and discussions here or you’ll find other people to play out your rage on.

There will be no further warnings. No further discussion. No further wasting of my time or the time of the other Mods.

We are D-O-N-E with disrespectful behavior, raging at one another, and making a toilet out of this or any other thread.

Play nice or get the fuck out.


Angie

[FireSignFemme]

Timed out just from this thread or from all of BFP until one's entire sentance has been served?

[MsTinkerbelly]

Timed out just from this thread or from all of BFP until one's entire sentance has been served?

When you are timed out you are gonzo from everything.

I have shown my ass numerous times, and I think my longest time out was 6 months. It is horrible to lose community for 6 months....

[dark_crystal]

I am concerned about Russia. Whether or not people are currently feeling the anti-mainstream heat, Russia will make sure sentiments like these grow legs.

Chapo Traphouse stated multiple times that interest in the Russia investigation was a litmus test for who NOT to support among the Dem candidates.

It's like they are Russian Meddling deniers, despite extensive proof that the Russians used them last time.

This will make just make the left a better weapon.

NBC News: Russia's propaganda machine discovers 2020 Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261), by Robert Windrem and Ben Popken, Feb. 2, 2019, 6:03 AM CST

The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat who earlier this month declared her intention to run for president in 2020.

An NBC News analysis of the main English-language news sites employed by Russia in its 2016 election meddling shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who is set to make her formal announcement Saturday, has become a favorite of the sites Moscow used when it interfered in 2016.

Russia-deniers on both right and left dismiss these concerns with "they're not doing anything we don't do" and that's true.

Information warfare has always existed and exists on all levels-- at work, in entertainment, in advertising, and in the official explanations of our own government on every topic.

Possibly the hysteria over information warfare is the MSM (note the source, NBC News)/centrist way of reviving Russia as an enemy now that terrorism is becoming less effective, so they can maintain the corporatist system, which is in itself yet some more information warfare.

"Beating Russia" as an agenda will be a lot cheaper than "saving the planet."

The problem i have with information warfare is it is so asymmetrical. It is the powerful against the weak on every level, and one side is not at all equipped for it.

Russia efforts to reach Bernie Sanders supporters more than was known, researcher says - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-russian-effort-to-target-sanders-supporters--and-help-elect-trump/2019/04/11/741d7308-5576-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html?utm_term=.b6aeb013a952)

Sanders told Vermont Public Radio last year that one of his campaign workers figured out what was going on, alerted the Clinton campaign and told them, “I think these guys are Russians.”

Only recently, with the latest analysis of Twitter data, has the extent of the Russian disinformation campaign been documented on that social media platform.

A pair of Clemson University researchers, at the request of The Washington Post, examined English-language tweets identified as coming from Russia, many of which were designed to influence the election. It is impossible to say how many were targeted at Sanders supporters because many don’t include his name. Some 9,000 of the Russian tweets used the word “Bernie,” which were “liked” 59,281 times and retweeted 61,804 times.

But that was only one element of the Russian effort to target Sanders supporters, the researchers said. Many thousands of other tweets, with no direct reference to Sanders, were also designed to appeal to his backers, urging them to do anything but vote for Clinton in the general election.

“I think there is no question that Sanders was central to their strategy. He was clearly used as a mechanism to decrease voter turnout for Hillary Clinton,” said one of the Clemson researchers, Darren Linvill, associate professor of communications. The tweets examined in the new analysis “give us a much clearer understanding of the tactics they were using. It was certainly a higher volume than people thought.”

The effort to promote Sanders as a way to influence the U.S. election began shortly after he declared his candidacy in spring 2015, according to Mueller’s indictment of the Russians. Russia’s aim was to defeat or weaken Clinton, who had angered Russian President Vladimir Putin when she had been secretary of state.

One reason that Sanders was on Russia’s radar has been little noted: he, like Trump, opposed trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Russian President Vladimir Putin had been critical of the TPP, saying it was secretive and “hardly facilitates sustainable development of Asia Pacific.”

During the primaries, Sanders gave at least three interviews to a Russia-controlled television network, RT, in which his trade stance was highlighted. The network in February 2016 criticized MSNBC for breaking away from Sanders after he said he was “helping to lead the opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.” The network posted a story headlined, “Bernie Sanders 'censored' by MSNBC while criticizing trade deal.”

This bothers me because i am starting to see anti-Bernie sentiment from people i never would have suspected. People who i would have expected to be anti-centrist. People like DeAnne Smith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeAnne_Smith#Personal_life)-- white, queer, vegan (lol)-- people i would assume to be a natural fit for the DSA. People i would have expected to be Hillary nose-holders (although DeAnne Smith is Canadian, i know.)

I feel like a lot of the anti-Bernie sentiment is about the stridence and aggression of his "followers," post-nomination and post-election.

But what we're seeing is that most of them were not real people. I mean, my colleague's husband and my high school bgf were two of the most obnoxious, and 100% real, but i think the rhetoric they were consuming was modeling that rage to them, making them believe this was what Bernie supporters were supposed to be like. And that rhetoric was 100% manufactured, for 100% evil purposes, and we mostly did not know.

And i think a lot of people don't even see Bernie when they think about him-- they see Bernie's most toxic followers, who never existed.

[dark_crystal]

I like that Bernie announced upon the heels of Schultz trying to blackmail the Dems over nominating him-- bc i, too, am a troll.

Now we are going to get to see who moves to the center to placate Schultz.

And any Dems who want to give Schultz the finger have only 1 way to do it: get behind Bernie. Schultz said specifically who he was most worried about.

ALSO

i like that Russia pushed his narrative to spoil Hillary/help Trump last cycle-- bc now all of their trollery bites them in the ass. Bernie's message is very visible and the Russians helped. Now their tactics become our asset.

It's beautiful.

I take this back lol

I listened to Chapo Traphouse this morning and the first thing they did was roundly mock Julian Castro for supporting meritocracy with his "Brain power is currency" remarks.

Then, Amber A'Lee Frost read her article "It's Bernie, Bitch (https://thebaffler.com/all-tomorrows-parties/its-bernie-bitch-frost)" out loud, verbatim.

The article basically declares that if the Democrats do not nominate Bernie it is going to be 2016 all over again.

Anti-Trump forces will splinter into capitalist Dems, socialist Dems, and disenchanted Republicans, and Trump's 30% will be enough to beat all three.

I'm not mad, i'm terrified. i'm not interested in fighting this, i want the rest of ya'll to just do as Ms. Frost says bc i'm still (as mentioned in the OP) too traumatized from #NeverHillary to go through it again.

Free college and Medicare for All are still free college and Medicare for All whether or not you're led at the point of a gun.

As a bonus we would also get President Bernie.

But not this

[BullDog]

There's plenty of obnoxious real Bernie followers and not fake bots drummed by the Russians. The Bros and others are real. Sanders never spoke up against them - only one of the many things I don't like about him.

I think Sanders would lose in a huge wipeout. I don't think his following is as strong as it was the last time around and he didn't have near enough to win the last time either. Many people I know who were followers of his before are quite disenchanted with him.

Of course, there are still the Bernie faithful and you won't convince them otherwise that Sanders isn't the answer. I definitely don't even bother trying.

We'll see.

[Martina]

My toxicity has nothing to do with being a Bernie follower. I am a supporter. An enthusiastic one, but my obnoxious online behavior has never, I believe, been on behalf of Bernie. It has been anti-Clinton, but it would have been so regardless of what other candidate I supported. I doubt there's more genuine assholery among Bernie supporters than any other group. I also am sure there's been some Russian intervention. I heard that that is picking up in spite of the efforts of the social media companies

[BullDog]

Assuming Russia still wants Trump to win I would think they will do whatever they can to take down whoever the Democrat is. If they try to help Bernie initially it's because they think he is easy to beat. I expect they will go after Biden hard.

Last I heard, Trump wanted to run against Warren, closely followed by Sanders. I think the Republicans believe those are the easiest ones to run against.

As obnoxious as I find some (emphasis some) Bernie followers, it's the candidate I vote for not the followers. He doesn't stand up or try to stop the obnoxious ones and that is one thing that bothers me. At least McCain spoke up against some of his looney tune followers (yeah he went with Palin which stirred a lot of it up in the first place so definitely far from perfect).

He didn't support Clinton hard enough after he lost. He didn't speak out against the sexism and lies of the Bros. He doesn't help the Democratic party - just runs as a Democrat when it's convenient for him. He's not a team player.

If he wins the Democratic nomination I will vote for him. Then brace for the landslide but still hope for the best.

[Kätzchen]

What I want, and hope we get somebody like this, is person who represents the PEOPLE first. Not a person who represents and embodies the same type of sexist, xenophobic, racist, god-like egotistical personalities we've seen in the past.

I want the very best for the future of the community at large -- a community of people who are least likely to be heard, and when I say that, I mean communities of people who are of every type of background (racial, ethnic, spiritual/faith-based, non-faith-based peoples, those of minority status among most categories of peoples, etc). Because I'm sick to death of the White Privilege card politics, the White-collar politics, or anything to do with privilege over those who have hardly any privilege except be born into a social system where our lives our used to uphold an antiquated system which has proven to cause more human harm and strife, than happiness.

I want the next president of the United States to not only think about how to best represent collective interests here at home, but abroad.

I want a president who won't be like the current monster in the WH.

I want a president whom nearly every person can respect and appreciate because they respect the people who have entrusted and elected them to represent everyone's best interests and not just their own interests or to make a mockery of social law and order and the process of democracy, in it's truest form.

It's early yet, in my mind, so I have every reason to believe that the Democratic Party will find its core strengths and improve on its weaknesses and be as thoughtful and pragmatic and devoted to the best interests of constituents, regardless of party orientation, but primarily focus on Democratic tenets which privilege and empower people, the vast majority of people in our country and globally, and eventually present the best candidate possible to represent the Democratic Party.

:vigil: :praying: :bunchflowers:

[cathexis]

Sanders may be not responding to the jerks using old lefty logic...

You don't react when provociteurs or saboteurs infiltrate. They may be FBI or
other negative influences trying to disrupt a socialist agenda.

Unusually, I will give him the benefit of doubt. Not a Sanders supporter, though. Democratic Socialists want to ride between socialism and capitalism, and are usually liberals, not true revolutionary forces.

[kittygrrl]

I have never seen Bernie in a good mood EVER..just my limited observation but it bothers me...he's rude to supporters at times. His campaign 2016 was embarrassingly absent of any real diversity..o yeah, this time he's cleaning up his act, but do i believe he's changed??, no not really he's 77. It's time for him to give a chance to the younger generation, he's had his turn and he (no longer) has a monopoly on free college and healthcare ideals...we need some fresh air..:praying:

[kittygrrl]

I hear Bernie did well at Fox News Town Hall..that was a bold move.

[dark_crystal]

Progressives DO NOT like Mayor Pete. He is getting criticized for his media coverage, his whitleblower position, his immigration position, his child care tax credit, and his frequent mentions of religion.

I have concerns about progressive calls to keep religion out of politics.

As much as that should be the ideal, religion is kicking our asses-- and has been for a couple of decades.

I feel like this is an area where there is a divide between the so-called "coastal elites" and the so-called "heartland."

I do not think progressive state people fully appreciate the influence religion has in the "heartland."

I am sure progressive state residents understand about fundamentalists and have seen JESUS CAMP and have run into Westboro and Operation Rescue at clinic defense, but all of that is kicked up about one thousand percent down here.

I do not think people who don't live/have not lived in the Bible Belt understand the intensity and ubiquity of some very extreme ideas, or the high degree of respect these ideas get even by people who don't practice them.

[CherylNYC]

Progressives DO NOT like Mayor Pete. He is getting criticized for his media coverage, his whitleblower position, his immigration position, his child care tax credit, and his frequent mentions of religion.

I have concerns about progressive calls to keep religion out of politics.

As much as that should be the ideal, religion is kicking our asses-- and has been for a couple of decades.

I feel like this is an area where there is a divide between the so-called "coastal elites" and the so-called "heartland."

I do not think progressive state people fully appreciate the influence religion has in the "heartland."

I am sure progressive state residents understand about fundamentalists and have seen JESUS CAMP and have run into Westboro and Operation Rescue at clinic defense, but all of that is kicked up about one thousand percent down here.

I do not think people who don't live/have not lived in the Bible Belt understand the intensity and ubiquity of some very extreme ideas, or the high degree of respect these ideas get even by people who don't practice them.

I agree with much of what you say, dark crystal. In my experience, one of the biggest divides between the so-called coastal elites and the alleged heartland is around being comfortable speaking about faith. One of the reasons why Mayor Pete is gaining ground amongst improbable supporters is because he speaks simply and authentically about his own personal faith. His authenticity as a Christian is really quite compelling to many. When progressives expect others to stay away from speaking about their own faith they appear to be plugging up the fountain of comfort for everyone else, as if there's something about it that should embarrass them, and that drives Americans away in droves. You can call those faith-driven people inhabitants of the 'heartland' if you like, and there probably are more of them in the southern and mid-western states, but I honestly don't think Christianity is a geographic phenomenon in the US.

Authentic faith isn't trotted out for a photo op or an election strategy. It just...is. Failure to recognize that is how we lose elections.

[dark_crystal]

I do not think progressive state people fully appreciate the influence religion has in the "heartland."

I am sure progressive state residents understand about fundamentalists and have seen JESUS CAMP and have run into Westboro and Operation Rescue at clinic defense, but all of that is kicked up about one thousand percent down here.

I do not think people who don't live/have not lived in the Bible Belt understand the intensity and ubiquity of some very extreme ideas, or the high degree of respect these ideas get even by people who don't practice them.

I agree with much of what you say, dark crystal. In my experience, one of the biggest divides between the so-called coastal elites and the alleged heartland is around being comfortable speaking about faith. One of the reasons why Mayor Pete is gaining ground amongst improbable supporters is because he speaks simply and authentically about his own personal faith. His authenticity as a Christian is really quite compelling to many. When progressives expect others to stay away from speaking about their own faith they appear to be plugging up the fountain of comfort for everyone else, as if there's something about it that should embarrass them, and that drives Americans away in droves.

C. Stroop: Escape from Jesus Land: On Recognizing Evangelical Abuse and Finding the Strength to Reject the Faith of Our Fathers (https://cstroop.com/2018/06/14/escape-from-jesus-land-on-recognizing-evangelical-abuse-and-finding-the-strength-to-reject-the-faith-of-our-fathers/)

Filial duty–a concept that likely seems quaint to the majority of people familiar with the names of intellectuals like Lakoff and Haidt–is a hard thing to shake when you come from a patriarchal religious background. The extent to which family loyalty, and specifically loyalty to fathers, prevails in “flyover country,” and, indeed, wherever conservative Christian enclaves exist in America, may come as a shock to many people who grew up in liberal and/or “coastal elite” families, because, for them, it is simply very difficult to imagine.

Having grown up in a very conservative state in an evangelical enclave, I continue to be surprised precisely at how surprised many Americans are at the prevailing extremism that passes for “normal” in Jesus Land. As the reactions to the revival of the #ChristianAltFacts hashtag on Twitter and the personal experiences of many exvangelicals show, things that are “normal” for evangelicals can often be shocking to those who do not know much about the subculture we come from.

I think it’s important for liberal Americans who do not come from a patriarchal religious background to hear our stories and to sit with that shock. Why? Because I remain convinced that if American civil society and the American press fail to come to grips with just how radically theocratic the Christian Right is, any kind of post-Trump soft landing scenario in which American democracy recovers a healthy degree of functionality is highly unlikely.

To put it another way, you may not come from Jesus Land, USA, but Jesus Land is coming for you. We will all be subjected to theocratic dystopia, to “one kleptocracy under God,” if we don’t stop the Christian Right.

The Christian Right has been able to acquire massively disproportionate power in part because the press has allowed evangelicals’ slick, code switching PR spin doctors–such as the Southern Baptist Convention’s Russell “journalists never ask me about my view that feminism is a heresy” Moore–to frame the national discussion of evangelicalism. The result is that the readers of major news outlets are presented with an unrealistically benign picture of a darkly authoritarian, cult-like branch of Protestantism.

"major news outlets are presented with an unrealistically benign picture" is what stands out to me here.

Down here in the Bible Belt, esp. in the cities, there are huge numbers of people who nominally identify as Christians but don't go to church.

Those people also view religion as universally benign. Evangelicals-- especially the women-- have a very wide-eyed pose that tearfully whimpers "all we want to do is raise wholesome families and save little babies how could anyone possibly have a problem with that????" and their nominally-Christian-but-don't-attend-church neighbors are very impressed by that.

These people are even harder to reach than the die-hards, because they don't have a working knowledge of Scripture but do feel the cultural prohibition around poking at it. You can quote scripture at a die-hard and get a response, but quote scripture at the nominally Christian and they just run away.

This is that "filial duty" Stroop mentions above. They don't know much of anything about their religion and they don't practice it but they're not about to question it. Not necessarily because they lack critical thinking skills in general, but because of "the extent to which family loyalty, and specifically loyalty to fathers, prevails"

[Martina]

I grew up with Evangelical aunts and cousins, but fortunately not parents. I grew up in small town Ohio, so not a coastal elite. And I STILL find it hard to understand how people can accept these beliefs, versions of Christian nationalism. I don't understand how people who believe in demons were able to look at Donald Rumsfeld and not see Beelzebub. I don't get it.

[kittygrrl]

i just hope we all can remember that the true intentions of the Democratic Party is to elect Trump out, i hope the liberal base will keep in mind that Socialism is not a popular idea among moderates and will definitely fire up Trumps mob...i get very concerned that the AOC part of the party is bordering on the lunatic fringe if they feel an ultra liberal candidate will win the presidency..even with my limited IQ it's obvious he/she wouldn't. Don't get me wrong i'd love to be 28 and full of !8&^%! but (having unreachable ideals in this day of 22 trillion dollar debt) won't pay the bills or make me more free..so i'm voting moderate in the primary

[BullDog]

_tx8qzKck3k

[Martina]

Bernie is the most popular candidate right now. I really don't think he reads like a scary radical, and the same populism, minus the racism and social Conservatism, is what got Trump elected. There are folks who voted Trump who are now supporting Bernie. No idea what the numbers are, but some are pretty vocal. People HATED Hillary. Not just didn't like or were unimpressed by. They HATED her. Some of that was sexism. But a lot of it was that she was in so many ways more of the same. I am not sure people are as hungry for change since Trump, and the Dems have appropriated the Bernie message (which is great), so we won't be in the same position again. I do think Bernie can reach mainstream voters. I don't have any concerns about that if he can make it through the primary. That, IMO, is a crapshoot. You never know what will happen out there.

[ksrainbow]

The Dem's hit the 20* mark to date.

My vision is not 20/20 with either eye ... left/right/center etc. Tis why I medically wear trifocals.

My peripheral vision remains intact for the time being.

Ks-:glasses:

[BullDog]

I'm on a few political email lists and somehow I end up with emails from a bunch of people like Bernie Sanders, Beto (like tons a day asking for money), Kamala Harris, etc.

Interesting today. Beto talking about how he needs money more than ever now that Biden is in the race,

Bernie - there's only one Bernie to save the day and the establishment is all against us.

Then there was Kamala Harris - my friend Joe Biden has entered the race. Great the more the merrier, I look forward to debating the issues.

Now that is smart and appeals to me. I think a Biden/Harris ticket would be great. I would rather she was the presidential candidate but I think Biden has a much better chance to beat Trump, but the two of them together would be great. I liked Biden's video. I think he can go for the jugular with Trump but still have something to offer beyond just negativity.

It's very likely that the emails were written by staff, but they are coming from the campaigns and represent the candidates. Two of them sounded like they were coming from small-minded, insecure people (and Bernie always thinks he's such a special snowflake). Kamala sounded confident and classy.

[CherylNYC]

I'm on a few political email lists and somehow I end up with emails from a bunch of people like Bernie Sanders, Beto (like tons a day asking for money), Kamala Harris, etc.

Interesting today. Beto talking about how he needs money more than ever now that Biden is in the race,

Bernie - there's only one Bernie to save the day and the establishment is all against us.

Then there was Kamala Harris - my friend Joe Biden has entered the race. Great the more the merrier, I look forward to debating the issues.

Now that is smart and appeals to me. I think a Biden/Harris ticket would be great. I would rather she was the presidential candidate but I think Biden has a much better chance to beat Trump, but the two of them together would be great. I liked Biden's video. I think he can go for the jugular with Trump but still have something to offer beyond just negativity.

It's very likely that the emails were written by staff, but they are coming from the campaigns and represent the candidates. Two of them sounded like they were coming from small-minded, insecure people (and Bernie always thinks he's such a special snowflake). Kamala sounded confident and classy.

I'm impressed by Harris, too. No, I don't think her terrible choices while she was DA disqualify her. I'm far more impressed by Elizabeth Warren and her dazzling array of specific plans. No, I don't care that she made a serious misstep by claiming Native American ancestry.

My fantasy ticket would be Warren/Harris. Yup, it's a fantasy, but I'll be unhappy if neither of those women ultimately end up on the 2020 Dem ticket.

[BullDog]

I'm impressed by Harris, too. No, I don't think her terrible choices while she was DA disqualify her. I'm far more impressed by Elizabeth Warren and her dazzling array of specific plans. No, I don't care that she made a serious misstep by claiming Native American ancestry.

My fantasy ticket would be Warren/Harris. Yup, it's a fantasy, but I'll be unhappy if neither of those women ultimately end up on the 2020 Dem ticket.

I like Warren too, but I don't think she can win. :(

But yeah Warren and Harris would be awesome.

[dark_crystal]

I grew up with Evangelical aunts and cousins, but fortunately not parents. I grew up in small town Ohio, so not a coastal elite. And I STILL find it hard to understand how people can accept these beliefs, versions of Christian nationalism. I don't understand how people who believe in demons were able to look at Donald Rumsfeld and not see Beelzebub. I don't get it.

It really is about obedience and conformity. We were literally brainwashed as children, exposed to so much horrifying rhetoric, that there is a visceral repulsion that rises up when one of us is put in a position where we might find ourselves at odds with the way we were raised.

It is not rational. And people who are outside of it tend to dismiss it or roll their eyes because it seems so babyish. Outsiders think critical thinking or common sense should be self-evident to us, but there are literal blind spots built into our brains from birth.

There are things which are placed beyond question, and this process is largely concluded before we even start school. We have no idea those blind spots exist and we have no way to see them working when they are active.

Facts and logic aren't going to help, because loyalty is stronger.

Converting these people cannot be our goal, but it would behoove us to do outreach and show them that the government we want is not a threat to them. When we roll our eyes at their ignorance or dismiss them as a vote we can afford to lose, we support the rhetoric-- rhetoric that is pouring into their ears 24/7 and blasted from the pulpit every Sunday-- that says we are coming to destroy them.

We ignore most of this rhetoric, because it is ridiculous. When we're not ignoring it, we try to argue from their terms, quoting scriptures that should clearly contradict that rhetoric. Neither of these tactics are ever going to work.

What we need to do is create a viable substitute rhetoric. Democrats need to show that the government we will build includes a respected position-- and a valuable and valued role-- for faith communities, and we need to build a productive channel for their energy. It may not be anything they will ever support, but it can be something they needn't fear.

When they hear from the Pastor that we want to destroy them, and then hear from us that we want their help, the result we are after is not to change their vote, but to suppress it through paralyzing cognitive dissonance. We need to continually be dumping sand on the fires their leaders are trying to feed.

Yes, i said voter suppression. The method of voter suppression i outlined above seems ethically fine to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

[kittygrrl]

Bernie's support of felons serving out their sentence should have the right to vote is nuts.

[Martina]

Every American citizen should have the right to vote.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Every American citizen should have the right to vote.

I have to agree with you Martina!

A felon is paying for a crime by serving time in a prision facility, the felon did not lose their citizenship because they are paying for or have paid for a crime. What does that really say to people...”you have to follow the rules, pay for your crime, and then become a non person?”

[cathexis]

I have to agree with you Martina!

A felon is paying for a crime by serving time in a prision facility, the felon did not lose their citizenship because they are paying for or have paid for a crime. What does that really say to people...”you have to follow the rules, pay for your crime, and then become a non person?”

Sometimes, concepts that others see as correct paths, seem tortuous and illogical to me. The felon, serving or who has served time in prison, is still a citizen. Why take certain civil rights away from people that the corrections system is attempting to "rehabilitate?" Should we, instead, be "role models," exhibiting "good American citizen behavior?" It is known that people involved in criminal activities do not vote in large numbers.

Also, here's a PI idea in the tone of Jonathan Swift. Perhaps, the Feds could begin administering Intelligence and Common Sense tests to ALL citizens registering to vote...no...in elementary school. Common sense testing might help us avoid some of the nitwit imbeciles who elect Presidents like Tr**p.

[C0LLETTE]

If Trump isn't paying Kellyanne Conway at least $5,000,000 per year, he is seriously underpaying her. She easily runs roughshod over every "adversarial" interviewer, particularly on CNN.

I don't even know why they invite her. She's a spewing propaganda machine that skillfully sidesteps all their questions and then floods out all her irrelevant talking points without taking an interruptible breath.

It's painful to watch.

[MsTinkerbelly]

If Trump isn't paying Kellyanne Conway at least $5,000,000 per year, he is seriously underpaying her. She easily runs roughshod over every "adversarial" interviewer, particularly on CNN.

I don't even know why they invite her. She's a spewing propaganda machine that skillfully sidesteps all their questions and then floods out all her irrelevant talking points without taking an interruptible breath.

It's painful to watch.

We had to stop watching CNN...partially for this reason, and partially because i no longer care for the constant bickering. I read and watch a variety of news sources, but my go to top 2 are Fox News and MSNBC (love me some RM), although the BBC news is sometimes a better source of reality.

Kelly Ann has always been a source of frustration for me, and life is too short to give the bitch my attention.

On a side note, I find it refreshing that Mayor Pete is not shying away from talking about religion...so many in this country (especially middle America) find their religion to be interwoven in all areas of their lives.

They may not like the gay, but he can talk to their fears about the “commies” making everyone Muslim. **

** I have relatives that actually believe that crap.

[dark_crystal]

I have to agree with you Martina!

A felon is paying for a crime by serving time in a prision facility, the felon did not lose their citizenship because they are paying for or have paid for a crime. What does that really say to people...”you have to follow the rules, pay for your crime, and then become a non person?”

IMO when crime and punishment issues can only voted on by people who have never committed a crime or been punished, that is a recipe for inhumane treatment, and more crime

[kittygrrl]

I think if you've murdered someone you don't deserve to vote..because the person you've murdered won't ever ever ever get the chance to do something in this world again. You should lose that privilege and a few more. Sorry, if you disagree, but serving time will never make up for that loss to a family or the country. Other then that non violent crimes i'm fine with them retaining voting rights.

[MsTinkerbelly]

I think if you've murdered someone you don't deserve to vote..because the person you've murdered won't ever ever ever get the chance to do something in this world again. You should lose that privilege and a few more. Sorry, if you disagree, but serving time will never make up for that loss to a family or the country. Other then that non violent crimes i'm fine with them retaining voting rights.

Not picking on you, just musing.....

Say you are right...what else shouldn’t they be able to do?

Drive a car?
Get married?
Have children?
Get life saving surgery?

I mean, of all the things their victim can never do again, we pick voting? Most felons will get out of prision, even murderers. They will have paid their debt as society decided it should be, so they keep on paying in an “eye for an eye” kind of trade-off?

Like I said, just musing.....

[C0LLETTE]

So, I did a bit of research on whether "citizenship" is a right or a privilege and found this:

"Citizenship is understood as a "right to have rights" since it serves as a foundation of fundamental rights derived from and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, such as the right to freedom of expression, vote, due process, live and work in the United States, and to receive federal assistance."
(Anonymously posted)

So, it would seem that to revoke someone's right to vote, you'd have to first go through the process of revoking their citizenship.

The Rights and Responsibilities of Canadian Citizens are outlined/defined somewhat differently and on the basis of a Charter. The issue of prisoners voting was settled by the Supreme Court in 2002.

Kathleen Harris · CBC News · Posted: Aug 25, 2015 :

"More than 22,000 federal inmates eligible to vote ...

Polling stations will be set up in Canadian prisons on Oct. 9 so inmates can exercise their right to vote.

When Canadians vote in the federal election in October, thousands will cast their ballot from behind bars.

Inmates in federal prisons and provincial jails are eligible to vote for a candidate in the riding where they lived before they were incarcerated.

In the last federal election in 2011, voter turnout was 54 per cent in penitentiaries, not far below the 61 per cent who exercised their democratic right in the general population.


"They are part of the polity and they want to be part of the democratic process," Catherine Latimer, executive director of The John Howard Society of Canada, told CBC News.

Prisoners are informed voters, advocate says

Because prisoners have time to read and watch television news, they are just as informed - if not even more so - than Canadian voters on the outside, she said. Kits will also be distributed to help them with the voting process.

A 2002 Supreme Court of Canada judgment gave federal prisoners the right to vote on constitutional grounds, ruling 5-4 that voting is a fundamental right in a democracy.

[kittygrrl]

Not picking on you, just musing.....

Say you are right...what else shouldn’t they be able to do?

Drive a car?
Get married?
Have children?
Get life saving surgery?

I mean, of all the things their victim can never do again, we pick voting? Most felons will get out of prision, even murderers. They will have paid their debt as society decided it should be, so they keep on paying in an “eye for an eye” kind of trade-off?

Like I said, just musing.....
Ms Tinkerberry, I always enjoy hearing your thoughts! As to your musings...as to what other things i think a murderer should not have access to...I haven't given it that much thought but lets start with guns, running for a public office, having custody of minor children in a divorce settlement..at least...you bought up paying for their crimes, but exactly how can you pay for taking a life???..will serving a sentence restore that person's life? There is nothing that this person can ever do to repay that debt. And while it's just my perspective, I'm very comfortable living with it. I don't want a known murderer living next door to me. Not very woke, I suppose but i would feel threaten ...

[MsTinkerbelly]

Ms Tinkerberry, I always enjoy hearing your thoughts! As to your musings...as to what other things i think a murderer should not have access to...I haven't given it that much thought but lets start with guns, running for a public office, having custody of minor children in a divorce settlement..at least...you bought up paying for their crimes, but exactly how can you pay for taking a life???..will serving a sentence restore that person's life? There is nothing that this person can ever do to repay that debt. And while it's just my perspective, I'm very comfortable living with it. I don't want a known murderer living next door to me. Not very woke, I suppose but i would feel threaten ...

All are good points, thank you for sharing your thoughts!

[kittygrrl]

All are good points, thank you for sharing your thoughts!

Ms Tinkerbelly..you always make me think and smile at the same time! It's very welcoming ty :heartbeat::praying:

[C0LLETTE]

All are good points, thank you for sharing your thoughts!

Wish I had your skills, MsTinkerbelly :bowdown::bowdown:

[MsTinkerbelly]

Did you all see where Joe Biden raised over $6 million on his first day?

My biggest fear has come to pass...unless someone ( anyone) can pull a rabbit out of their hats, it will come down to a bunch of white men fighting it out in the end for the nomination.

Older America is going to vote for good old Joe, and younger America is going to vote for Bernie; the party will be split, and the orange POS will win again.

Fun times!

[MsTinkerbelly]

Wish I had your skills, MsTinkerbelly :bowdown::bowdown:

After multiple time outs, I have learned to bite my tongue. It is practically ground meat at this stage of my life, but I get to keep this community for another day.

Sometimes it’s hard to be me:jester:

[Kätzchen]

I miss reading posts by Anya and the links to articles she used to supply on forum boards, concerning political issues. I often wonder what she'd say or what kernel of truth might emerge by Anya sharing with the community.

I've been quietly thinking about a plethora of things, mainly fall-out type things, concerning all the ways the pillars of American democracy are under assault and crumbling daily, under the dictatorship of the current WH occupant. In my mind, it's like an unveiling of the massive prejudicial attitudes which have long been a part of the fabric of American life: Inequalities present in everyday life which affect people because of their color, orientation, or other particular status' relevant to each person, in individual and collective ways. It's terribly painful, truly.

I hold hope that unexpected voices will make their choices heard when it comes time to elect people to VIP positions in DC and beyond.

I think our country deserves better than the end result of the 2016 election.

Last I remember, Anya was going to devote personal time to helping out in the S. California League of Women's Voters. I always wonder where she is and how she is doing.

I appreciate reading member's posts in Dark_Crystal's 2020 Presidential Election forum thread. I think DC made some highly articulate points in recent posts, so I am grateful for her latest thoughts about conformity and I think conformity definitely plays a critical role in how people make decisions, whether it is personal decisions in their own life, or how they perceive making useful decisions which impacts the greater community at large, in collective ways.

I think both DC and MsTinkerbelly have made critical arguments on ways we (the general 'we') might see another split among party-lines, concerning voting issues. But I have always been concerned about voting rights, the suppression and opposition to voting rights, and matters inextricably linked to voting processes, which in the end, as we've seen for the past decade or so, has affected the outcome of particular voting/election processes.

Like many, I think America is done with Toxic Politics and Toxic forms of oppression and I hold faith and hope that the next election in 2020 will produce a better result, so we and allies across the world, are spared another four years of the monster (and their cronies) currently residing in the WH.

[Martina]

I have to say I am seeing more Dems attacking other Dems. It's a primary. I guess you have to. But after my choice of Bernie and Kamala, I just don't care. I don't hate any of the other candidates although with Booker I come close. That Tulsi Gabbard definitely makes me uncomfortable. But really, none is so God awful that I wouldn't vote for them if they got the nomination.

A lot of mainstream Dems are getting on Socialist sites and shaking their little fists, saying you better vote blue no matter what. That shit so backfires. And the progressives picking apart every vote and decision the mainstream Dems have made have me rolling my eyes. I'm like, no shit, they're Democrats.

It is frustrating though. Trump is actually looking stronger. And the world, IMO, is getting more fucked up by the day. The news about the environment is terrifying. It would be good to field a strong alternative who could excite independents and disaffected Republicans.

The thing about Kamala is that people respect her. I think that is especially meaningful in this election. People might view her as someone who could make them feel safe. Bernie can really inspire people. Mayor Pete, people seem to like. We definitely need a candidate people can feel good about voting for for whatever reason. We can't risk another hold your nose candidate. Or even an I don't care that much candidate. It doesn't matter what quality, whether it's strength or vision or whatever, we definitely need someone people can feel good about voting for.

[homoe]

The only one I'd have trouble backing at this stage of the race would be Kirsten Gillibrand!

[Martina]

I just read for the second time that Obama voters who went Trump in 2016 are not likely to in 2020. Those voters and stay-at-homes lost Clinton the election. I'm more sure than ever that we got to get someone voters feel something good about. That's not necessarily likeability. But something positive. Something in addition to hating Trump to get them to wait in line. Kamala's strength inspires confidence, IMO. Obviously, I like Bernie best, but Kamala would be a good candidate.

[BullDog]

Harris is my first choice but I think Biden has the best chance to win. We'll see.

Oh my, Harris destroyed Barr. It was a true work of art. She's good.

[kittygrrl]

my choices are changing as time goes by...i prefer Biden at this point but because i think he has the best chance of winning..not because i agree with his politics..if you asked me my favs..it's probably jay inslee, mayor pete and harris..

[cathexis]

Unfortunately, I think Biden will probably get the rust belt and the rest of the Mid-West. He's blue collar relates well to that portion of the electorate. I think Gillibrand is too meek to fight in the bull pen. Kamala could survive the fight, but not my 1st choice. Got my eye on Mayor Pete. He's got his finger on the pulse on a large section of the country; because, he's skin and bone of the body of the center of America.

[Orema]

Trump’s Tariffs Are a New Tax on Americans (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/10/opinion/trump-tax-china-tariff.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage)

By The New York Times Editorial Board.

May 10, 2019

President Trump is undermining the credibility of his trade policies by falsely claiming that China is paying the bill.

https://i.postimg.cc/3RqpxPXZ/175026d9520a42d7979d2445e14f00b7-super-Jumbo.jpg (https://postimages.org/)
The more President Trump escalates his trade war with China, the more American shoppers will notice higher prices in their favorite grocery stores, hardware shops and big-box retailers. Photo Credit: Callaghan O'Hare/Bloomberg

President Trump’s new tariffs on Chinese imports, which took effect at 12:01 a.m. on Friday, are taxes that will be paid by Americans. That is a simple fact, and it remains true no matter how many times Mr. Trump insists the money will come from China.

Mr. Trump’s latest escalation of his trade fight with China is a 25 percent tariff, or import tax, on products that compose about one third of China’s exports to the United States, including Chinese bicycles, circuit boards and wooden doors. The tariff rate on those goods was previously 10 percent. Mr. Trump also has threatened to impose the 25 percent rate on virtually all products imported from China — more than $500 billion in goods last year.

Mr. Trump could make an honest case for this tax increase. He could argue that Americans must endure higher prices because China will suffer too — while China does not bear the direct cost of the tariffs, it is likely to suffer a loss of sales — and the United States needs that leverage as it presses China to change its economic policies.

Instead, Mr. Trump continues to repeat the false claim that the money will come from China, even though he has been told repeatedly that this claim has no basis in fact. He is willfully peddling a falsehood for political gain.

The mechanics of tariffs are not complicated: The government sends a tax bill to the company that brings goods into the country. Most of those tax bills go to American companies, often import firms that specialize in dealing with the customs process.

It doesn’t really matter who gets the bill, however. The important question is where the money to pay it comes from. And in broad terms, there are only two options: It comes either from the firms that make, move and sell the products or from the pockets of the buyers.

Consider the case of washing machines. In January 2018, Mr. Trump imposed a tariff on washing machines, initially at a rate of 20 percent. The tariff caused a 12 percent increase in the price of washing machines, according to a study by economists at the Federal Reserve and the University of Chicago. It also resulted in a similar increase in the price of dryers. Americans responded by buying more domestic washing machines, creating about 1,800 new jobs. But the cost of the tariffs was borne entirely by American consumers. The study estimated that each of those new jobs came at a cost of more than $815,000.

The Trump administration has tried to focus the China tariffs on the industrial supply chain: products used in making other goods, rather than products sold directly to consumers. That means much of the cost initially is absorbed by faceless corporations.

But the bottom line remains either lower profits or higher prices.

Some of the money could, in theory, be squeezed from Chinese manufacturers. But a pair of recent studies by prominent academics, including the chief economist at the World Bank, have concluded that the full cost of the Trump tariffs is being paid here in the United States, although China has suffered a loss of access to the American market.

One of the studies concluded that the cost of the tariffs has fallen disproportionately on the parts of the country that have supported Mr. Trump most strongly, in part because China and other nations subjected to tariffs have targeted their retaliatory tariffs at agricultural products and other goods produced in those parts of the country.

The cost of a tax is not just the money extracted from the private sector but also the disruption of economic activity. Here, too, the tariffs are proving painful. The second study estimated that tariffs were extracting $3 billion a month from American companies and consumers — and causing an additional $1.4 billion a month in lost economic activity.

Mr. Trump’s tariffs also have prompted China to retaliate, and that is causing particular pain for Midwestern farmers who have lost a major market for their crops.

Mr. Trump tweeted on Friday that the federal government would collect $100 billion in tariff revenue and that he would use some of the money to purchase American agricultural products, which would then be shipped to “poor & starving countries.” The rest of the money, he said, could be used for “Infrastructure, Health care or anything else.”

It’s a good idea to raise taxes to pay for foreign aid, infrastructure and health care.

But a tariff is a consumption tax, much like a sales tax, and such taxes tend to be regressive, meaning they cost lower-income families a larger share of their income than they cost upper-income families. There are better ways to raise the money. For example, the ill-considered tax cuts for the wealthy that Mr. Trump pushed through Congress in 2017 could be reversed.

Moreover, there is growing reason to doubt that tariffs are serving Mr. Trump’s stated purpose of persuading China to change its trade policies. There is widespread agreement, both in the United States and among America’s allies, that China is engaged in unfair practices, such as state-subsidized manufacturing, theft of intellectual property and both formal and informal constraints on foreign businesses. Those are real problems, and enforceable commitments to enact reforms could deliver significant economic and environmental benefits. Mr. Trump’s tariffs could yet prove a painful success story.

But the cost of Mr. Trump’s approach has just gone up: Americans will be paying higher prices on a wide range of goods. And Mr. Trump — who famously declared in March 2018 that “trade wars are good, and easy to win” — has yet to show he can strike a deal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/10/opinion/trump-tax-china-tariff.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

[girl_dee]

Trump’s Tariffs Are a New Tax on Americans (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/10/opinion/trump-tax-china-tariff.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage)

By The New York Times Editorial Board.

May 10, 2019

President Trump is undermining the credibility of his trade policies by falsely claiming that China is paying the bill.

https://i.postimg.cc/3RqpxPXZ/175026d9520a42d7979d2445e14f00b7-super-Jumbo.jpg (https://postimages.org/)
The more President Trump escalates his trade war with China, the more American shoppers will notice higher prices in their favorite grocery stores, hardware shops and big-box retailers. Photo Credit: Callaghan O'Hare/Bloomberg

President Trump’s new tariffs on Chinese imports, which took effect at 12:01 a.m. on Friday, are taxes that will be paid by Americans. That is a simple fact, and it remains true no matter how many times Mr. Trump insists the money will come from China.

Mr. Trump’s latest escalation of his trade fight with China is a 25 percent tariff, or import tax, on products that compose about one third of China’s exports to the United States, including Chinese bicycles, circuit boards and wooden doors. The tariff rate on those goods was previously 10 percent. Mr. Trump also has threatened to impose the 25 percent rate on virtually all products imported from China — more than $500 billion in goods last year.

Mr. Trump could make an honest case for this tax increase. He could argue that Americans must endure higher prices because China will suffer too — while China does not bear the direct cost of the tariffs, it is likely to suffer a loss of sales — and the United States needs that leverage as it presses China to change its economic policies.

Instead, Mr. Trump continues to repeat the false claim that the money will come from China, even though he has been told repeatedly that this claim has no basis in fact. He is willfully peddling a falsehood for political gain.

The mechanics of tariffs are not complicated: The government sends a tax bill to the company that brings goods into the country. Most of those tax bills go to American companies, often import firms that specialize in dealing with the customs process.

It doesn’t really matter who gets the bill, however. The important question is where the money to pay it comes from. And in broad terms, there are only two options: It comes either from the firms that make, move and sell the products or from the pockets of the buyers.

Consider the case of washing machines. In January 2018, Mr. Trump imposed a tariff on washing machines, initially at a rate of 20 percent. The tariff caused a 12 percent increase in the price of washing machines, according to a study by economists at the Federal Reserve and the University of Chicago. It also resulted in a similar increase in the price of dryers. Americans responded by buying more domestic washing machines, creating about 1,800 new jobs. But the cost of the tariffs was borne entirely by American consumers. The study estimated that each of those new jobs came at a cost of more than $815,000.

The Trump administration has tried to focus the China tariffs on the industrial supply chain: products used in making other goods, rather than products sold directly to consumers. That means much of the cost initially is absorbed by faceless corporations.

But the bottom line remains either lower profits or higher prices.

Some of the money could, in theory, be squeezed from Chinese manufacturers. But a pair of recent studies by prominent academics, including the chief economist at the World Bank, have concluded that the full cost of the Trump tariffs is being paid here in the United States, although China has suffered a loss of access to the American market.

One of the studies concluded that the cost of the tariffs has fallen disproportionately on the parts of the country that have supported Mr. Trump most strongly, in part because China and other nations subjected to tariffs have targeted their retaliatory tariffs at agricultural products and other goods produced in those parts of the country.

The cost of a tax is not just the money extracted from the private sector but also the disruption of economic activity. Here, too, the tariffs are proving painful. The second study estimated that tariffs were extracting $3 billion a month from American companies and consumers — and causing an additional $1.4 billion a month in lost economic activity.

Mr. Trump’s tariffs also have prompted China to retaliate, and that is causing particular pain for Midwestern farmers who have lost a major market for their crops.

Mr. Trump tweeted on Friday that the federal government would collect $100 billion in tariff revenue and that he would use some of the money to purchase American agricultural products, which would then be shipped to “poor & starving countries.” The rest of the money, he said, could be used for “Infrastructure, Health care or anything else.”

It’s a good idea to raise taxes to pay for foreign aid, infrastructure and health care.

But a tariff is a consumption tax, much like a sales tax, and such taxes tend to be regressive, meaning they cost lower-income families a larger share of their income than they cost upper-income families. There are better ways to raise the money. For example, the ill-considered tax cuts for the wealthy that Mr. Trump pushed through Congress in 2017 could be reversed.

Moreover, there is growing reason to doubt that tariffs are serving Mr. Trump’s stated purpose of persuading China to change its trade policies. There is widespread agreement, both in the United States and among America’s allies, that China is engaged in unfair practices, such as state-subsidized manufacturing, theft of intellectual property and both formal and informal constraints on foreign businesses. Those are real problems, and enforceable commitments to enact reforms could deliver significant economic and environmental benefits. Mr. Trump’s tariffs could yet prove a painful success story.

But the cost of Mr. Trump’s approach has just gone up: Americans will be paying higher prices on a wide range of goods. And Mr. Trump — who famously declared in March 2018 that “trade wars are good, and easy to win” — has yet to show he can strike a deal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/10/opinion/trump-tax-china-tariff.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage


I have been saying this! While it is true that companies may look for alternatives to china (one of our manufacturers at my company has already said this) the bill is not going coming out of China’s pocket. The distributors and the customers are the ones paying more.

It comes either from the firms that make, move and sell the products or from the pockets of the buyers.

To me this whole issue is just poking the bear.

[Martina]

According to CNN, Beto is not polling well. Tied for sixth with 2%. Maybe he wasn't "Born to Run."

[kittygrrl]

Unfortunately, I think Biden will probably get the rust belt and the rest of the Mid-West. He's blue collar relates well to that portion of the electorate. I think Gillibrand is too meek to fight in the bull pen. Kamala could survive the fight, but not my 1st choice. Got my eye on Mayor Pete. He's got his finger on the pulse on a large section of the country; because, he's skin and bone of the body of the center of America.

unfortunate?...no, i think it's cool that we have such a vivid contrast to t**** and that t**** is definitely scared..and desperate..he's not my 1st choice, but perhaps the universe is hearing the cries of the people and will give him the strength to win...he's not my 1st choice but he's an angel to me..

[cathexis]

unfortunate?...no, i think it's cool that we have such a vivid contrast to t**** and that t**** is definitely scared..and desperate..he's not my 1st choice, but perhaps the universe is hearing the cries of the people and will give him the strength to win...he's not my 1st choice but he's an angel to me..

Okay, kittygrrl, perhaps "unfortunate" was a bit strong. We'd be in way better shape with Biden than now, and he would work well patching up our relations with our allies. He is a statesman with strong experience. I just wished for someone further left.

Mayor Pete is showing colors that bear a little closer watching. He may not turn out as much of a prized peach as he was out of the starting gate. Maybe he just needs to settle down a bit.

[dark_crystal]

I have been saying this! While it is true that companies may look for alternatives to china (one of our manufacturers at my company has already said this) the bill is not going coming out of China’s pocket. The distributors and the customers are the ones paying more.

It comes either from the firms that make, move and sell the products or from the pockets of the buyers.

To me this whole issue is just poking the bear.



It is not just consumers being hurt by the tariffs:

Is This the End of Recycling? (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/china-has-stopped-accepting-our-trash/584131/)

After decades of earnest public-information campaigns, Americans are finally recycling. Airports, malls, schools, and office buildings across the country have bins for plastic bottles and aluminum cans and newspapers. In some cities, you can be fined if inspectors discover that you haven’t recycled appropriately.

But now much of that carefully sorted recycling is ending up in the trash.

For decades, we were sending the bulk of our recycling to China—tons and tons of it, sent over on ships to be made into goods such as shoes and bags and new plastic products. But last year, the country restricted imports of certain recyclables, including mixed paper—magazines, office paper, junk mail—and most plastics. Waste-management companies across the country are telling towns, cities, and counties that there is no longer a market for their recycling. These municipalities have two choices: pay much higher rates to get rid of recycling, or throw it all away.

Most are choosing the latter.

This is disturbing for two reasons: one is that recycling has stopped happening in a lot of places.

The other reason is that we have to ship our recyclables overseas because preparing the recyclables is so labor intensive that it cannot be done in countries where labor has any rights.

Even without the tariffs, our recycling contributes to labor exploitation, possibly even child labor.

[kittygrrl]

we should banish plastic from food products..the invasion of plastic into our air, water, and soil will eventually kill us all..the candidates who are sincere about climate change must include all the substances that are slowly poisoning us and our world.
https://image.shutterstock.com/image-vector/handdrawing-inscription-say-no-plastic-450w-1160143345.jpg

[C0LLETTE]

North American "recycling" is a blight on many economies and has wiped out manufacturing in several "poor" countries.
Why should any of these countries ( particularly African ) try to sustain a manufacturing industry when cargo containers full of used Gap tee shirts and old Nike runners cram their ports daily. Tee shirt for 5 cents, shoes for 2 cents....why bother trying to make it?

We , here, don't want to pay to dispose of it. We, here, want to feel good about being charitable. And ultimately we are chocking off "emerging economies" that find no where to grow cause we dump our "goodwill" garbage on them.

Happy Mother's Day, BTW. :beerfunnel:

[Orema]

If Biden (or Bernie) get the nomination, then Bernie (or Biden) will probably be on the ticket as the VP.

A lot can happen between now and voting day but I see this as a real possibility. This certainly isn’t a ticket I’d like to see, but I’d go for it if it meant dumping Trump’s ass out of office.

And Biden and Bernie know it.

[C0LLETTE]

If Biden (or Bernie) get the nomination, then Bernie (or Biden) will probably be on the ticket as the VP.

A lot can happen between now and voting day but I see this as a real possibility. This certainly isn’t a ticket I’d like to see, but I’d go for it if it meant dumping Trump’s ass out of office.

And Biden and Bernie know it.

Sounds perfect. They can do "paper, scissors, stone" for who should start and who would live long enough to succeed the other.

:yeahthat:

[dark_crystal]

we should banish plastic from food products..the invasion of plastic into our air, water, and soil will eventually kill us all..the candidates who are sincere about climate change must include all the substances that are slowly poisoning us and our world.


I remember being like ten years old and starting to see the shift from glass to plastic food packaging-- starting with soda and then moving on to mustard and ketchup, then milk.

They advertised the packaging as "shatterproof and disposable," and even as a kid i was confused: since when was plastic disposable? And i have to wonder, now, how it was that all of the adults went "yes, good" and never hesitated at all to drop those giant two-liters into the garbage?

I mean, my grandparents lived on a farm, and had no utility service-- which means they were on well and septic for water and sewage, and disposed of all trash by burning it in a barrel.

That burn pile was always visible to us, and every time you walked past it you could see the stuff that did not fall to ash. When plastic packaging hit the shelves, that burn barrel was what i thought of.

Anyway here is some history
The Guardian: Opinion-- Plastic bottles are a recycling disaster. Coca-Cola should have known better (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/02/plastic-bottles-coca-cola-recycling-coke)

[...]In the past several decades, Coca-Cola has fought hard to prevent communities around the world implementing deposit systems that would require drinks firms to add a charge to the price of their products, to be refunded when customers returned the packaging to the distributor or retailer.

Deposit systems began to spread in the US in the 1970s, as throwaway steel and aluminium cans replaced the returnable glass bottles that once dominated the beer and soft drink industries.
This switch to throwaways, which started with brewers in the 1930s and matured in the soft drinks industry in the 1960s, was in part driven by a consumer culture that craved convenience. It was also driven by economics, as big beverage companies sought to achieve economies of scale by consolidating their bottling networks, and realised they could save money if they didn’t have to truck returnable bottles back to factories.

But those companies did not like deposit systems because they believed government-imposed price hikes could hit sales. Coke, Pepsi and others organised to counter deposit laws. Their campaign was successful, largely because of a promise they brought to debates: kerbside recycling. In federal and state government hearings, Coca-Cola and others argued that municipal recycling systems, if funded and supported by government agencies, would eliminate the need for deposits. By the mid-80s, this argument had won the day.

How did this system stack up against the alternatives, considering the full ecological impact of reclaiming returnable glass bottles, including washing them? In 1969 Coca-Cola attempted to answer that question by asking the Midwest Research Institute to conduct a life-cycle analysis of packaging. The firm looked at various types of throwaway containers, and compared them with returnable glass bottles on almost every measure: energy expenditure, waste generation, water pollution, air emissions and more

This study, which the investigators reproduced for the US Environmental Protection Agency in 1974, concluded that no throwaway “container will be improved to match or surpass that of [the 10-trip returnable glass bottle] in the near future”.

Coca-Cola nevertheless placed its future in the plastic bottle. Paul Austin, then company president, explained this was because Coca-Cola believed recycling systems would allow the company to reclaim much of the plastic it used.

The beauty of history is that we can look back and see if Austin’s bet paid off. Using the US as a case study, the message is clear: failure to offer financial incentives has resulted in a wasteful recycling system. Over 25 years since kerbside recycling began, 70% of plastic containers are never reclaimed. Just 30% end up being recycled.

Basically, we trashed our oceans to preserve one company's profit margins.

So, who failed? Was it the company who shifted half its responsibility to "municipal recycling systems, if funded and supported by government agencies"?

Capitalist rhetoric says we have to blame the consumer. Governments would have better-funded and more successful recycling programs if consumers demanded them, or even used them, but they didn't and they don't.

That is a tactic for maintaining the status quo. Anytime the rhetoric can shift the blame to a million end-users of a product instead of tracing a problem back to its root and holding the original decision-makers responsible, change becomes less possible.

I mean, the lag time for my family between all products shifting to plastic and the arrival of our first curbside bin was at least a decade. Shouldn't someone have required Coke to shift their packaging gradually, market area by market area, as recycling became available in each area? We should not have had plastic on our supermarket shelves until we had bins on our curbs.

[kittygrrl]

Not sure who will end up being the Democratic nominee but if it's Biden I hope he can persuade Harris to take the Vice Presidency or if not her then Klobuchar ....i hate to say this...............................but it's our turn:praying:

[cathexis]

Let's not let our guard down. We still have to Get dt out of the White House. Not referring to the election, necessarily. Who's to say that he will give up the power without a fight. Would not be surprised if he pulls an advance Executive Order, carefully worded, to give the President additional power or he even ignores the election.

He might require force to get ejected. The US has never encountered a President who behaves this way, stomping all over the Constitution. We need to remain vigilant.

Remember, Hitler was initially elected to office.

[kittygrrl]

Beto did fairly well and seemed coherent last night but anyone can seem to be for a few minutes at a time...i'm hesitate to believe power will not eventually corrupt even those who seem the most ethical choice in our minds..gosh, i think, i still have GOT dust on my thoughts:rant:

[Martina]

Hate to be guilty of schadenfreude, but this strikes me as funny as hell.

Not 'born to be in it': Beto O’Rourke strikes more humble tone as buzz fades

Https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/14/beto-o-rourke-vanity-fair-cover-humble-tone-reboot-campaign

He's apologizing. He hasn't done anything wrong really. People just aren't responding to him or his middle of the road message. Apologies won't help. I can see why he's embarrassed though.

[BullDog]

I don't know why people like Beto and Pete Buttigieg think they have the right to run for President of the United States. I don't have anything against either one of them but I don't see how either one of them has enough experience. I sure wish we had actual job requirements for the position - that would have ruled out the orange monstrosity who is obviously in no way shape or form qualified. There are stricter job requirements to be a manager at a fast food restaurant than to be president of the United States.

[A. Spectre]

Joe Bidens' mishandling of the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill hearings is enough for me to disregard his candidacy. Allow me to recap for some here who do not recall or needs a jog of the memory.

What did Biden do during the hearings?

He did little to almost nothing from stopping the committee members from attacking Professor Hill. The Republicans were the most relentless. Arlen Specter asked her why she didn’t report the behavior to HR and said that discussing “large breasts” at work was common. Howell Heflin asked if she was a “scorned woman” and if she had “militant attitude relative to the area of civil rights” or a “martyr complex.” Charles Grassley accused her of lifting the pubic hair story from The Exorcist.

Second, Biden failed to call additional witnesses who could have corroborated Hill’s testimony. One of those women, Angela Wright Shannon, told Roll Call in 2016 that it was probably a good thing that she didn’t testify. “I don’t think I could have maintained the grace and dignity of Anita Hill,” she said. Hill, in 2014, said Biden declining to put the other witnesses in front of the committee was “a disservice to me” and “a disservice more importantly, to the public,” as allowing those women to testify would have “helped the public to understand sexual harassment. He failed to do that.”

You want to talk about hubris when it relates to IQ 45, I personally see similar hubris in Sanders and Biden albeit much less detrimental to society. It is time for the old white men to sit down.

[dark_crystal]

I don't know why people like Beto and Pete Buttigieg think they have the right to run for President of the United States. I don't have anything against either one of them but I don't see how either one of them has enough experience. I sure wish we had actual job requirements for the position - that would have ruled out the orange monstrosity who is obviously in no way shape or form qualified. There are stricter job requirements to be a manager at a fast food restaurant than to be president of the United States.

Obama wasn't all that qualified, either. Or Reagan.

[BullDog]

Obama wasn't all that qualified, either. Or Reagan.

Reagan was governor of California for 8 years so technically he did have experience. I still don't think he was qualified necessarily and he was a horrible president but he was governor for a long time.

We have had a lot of presidents who were governors and didn't really have any experience in Washington. Personally, I want someone who has worked in DC because that place will eat people alive, but there have been plenty who haven't.

Quite frankly, my top choice, Kamala Harris, is only on her first term as senator. Before that she was Attorney General of California. She does serve on important committees like the Intelligence and Judiciary committees. From my own point of view, her experience level is a little on the light side.

Obama - yes absolutely. When he first ran I was like who is this and why is he running. He doesn't have enough experience. I supported Hillary. When he beat her I did think it was all fair and wasn't upset but I was still highly skeptical. I started to really come around on Obama when he did the foreign policy debate with McCain. Everyone said going in he would be at such a disadvantage against the seasoned statesman, but I thought Obama was really good in that debate and I was really behind him ever since.

I don't think Obama did have enough experience going in but was a good president anyway based on intelligence and strength of character.

There's a lot of people who want someone who isn't an insider or politician or whatever to be president. I'm definitely not one of them. I want someone who knows how things work in DC for the slim chance that things can get done. I think the less you know the more at a disadvantage you are. But yes there are still other factors and Obama is a good example of that. I think he is also quite the exception to the rule.

I am still annoyed about Beto and Buttigieg running. It's like hey I was an intern at a company and now the CEO is retiring so I'm going to apply for the job.

[C0LLETTE]

Could it be something as simple as getting your name out there so people might recognize it next time?

[kittygrrl]

yes..although true Biden is not my first choice.. At least I know what I get when it's Joe. I have no clue about the others really, i've only heard rumors and formed opinions .. At least with Joe, you know although he's not perfect, he has experience, he's not a racist, or a billionaire, and he cares:tea:

[BullDog]

I think Joe Biden by far has the best chance to beat Trump and I have no objection to him either. He is also the only one who just might be able to sway a few Republicans in the Senate to get things passed. It's still a long shot because of how they tow the party line, but he is the one who possibly could do it. He has working relationships with some of them. People act like that's a bad thing. Do you want legislation to get passed or not? I don't think he is going to sell us out to some right wing agenda.

[Orema]

I think Joe Biden by far has the best chance to beat Trump and I have no objection to him either. He is also the only one who just might be able to sway a few Republicans in the Senate to get things passed. It's still a long shot because of how they tow the party line, but he is the one who possibly could do it. He has working relationships with some of them. People act like that's a bad thing. Do you want legislation to get passed or not? I don't think he is going to sell us out to some right wing agenda.

I have problems with Biden for the reasons Ace listed and more. I also remember the bussing issues in the late 1960s and 1970s—my father fretted over that for a long time and ended up sending me to a private school to avoid the haters that were stoked by politiicians like Biden. Still, I'd rather have Biden in office than Trump or any other Republican for that matter and that's what it boils down to for me.

I'm committed to voting for the Democratic nominee whether it's Bernie or Biden.

[BullDog]

I watched the entire Anita Hill hearings and she was treated horribly by the Republicans and it's those people who treated her horribly who are at fault for that, not Biden's as far as I am concerned. I suppose as Chairman he could have done more but it's a bit Monday morning quarterbacking to me, and Senators do get to have their say and pontificate and ask their questions and I think Biden would have basically have had to have broken Senate tradition to stop them from asking their "questions" and that never happens.

I just think it's unrealistic to think he could have done a lot more to change things and he wasn't the one who treated her badly. Perhaps I am wrong.

Again, I do think it was absolutely horrible how Anita Hill was treated and I hate, hate, hate that Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court.

Now we have Kavanaugh who is even worse. Ugh.

[Orema]

I watched the entire Anita Hill hearings and she was treated horribly by the Republicans and it's those people who treated her horribly who are at fault for that, not Biden's as far as I am concerned. I suppose as Chairman he could have done more but it's a bit Monday morning quarterbacking to me, and Senators do get to have their say and pontificate and ask their questions and I think Biden would have basically have had to have broken Senate tradition to stop them from asking their "questions" and that never happens.

I just think it's unrealistic to think he could have done a lot more to change things and he wasn't the one who treated her badly. Perhaps I am wrong.

Again, I do think it was absolutely horrible how Anita Hill was treated and I hate, hate, hate that Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court.

Now we have Kavanaugh who is even worse. Ugh.

Monday morning quarterbacking? Hardly.

For a number of us, this isnt a grudge that happened after the fact. The anger and frustration is real and is a direct result of the hearings.

Biden was an ass who, as usual, made it easy for the for republicans to shame Hill and replace Marshall with Thomas.

[BullDog]

I did watch the entire thing but it was a long time ago.

If a bunch of Democrats treated someone badly the Republicans would never blame themselves and ensue with in-fighting. It would never happen. Another assist to the enemy.

I don't think of Biden as acting as an ass as usual and no I don't think it was Biden's fault. Anyone who wants to think that of course can.


Clarence Thomas was confirmed by a vote of 52-48. It was mostly on party lines but 11 asshole Democrats voted for him. Biden wasn't one of them - he voted against. It could have been stopped but the Blue Dogs voted for him

There were also 2 Republicans who voted against. One was Jim Jeffords from Vermont who later became an Independent and caucused with the Democrats so not sure I would count him as a Republican really. The other Republican who voted against Thomas was Bob Packwood - who had to resign from the Senate later when multiple women came forward on sexual assault charges.

The Democrats technically had the votes. It should have been stopped. Personally I don't see it as Biden's fault. I'm sure he could have done better but the one thing he could control he did - he voted against the nomination.

52-48

Democrats who voted for Thomas


Richard Shelby (Alabama)
Dennis DeConcini (Arizona)
Sam Nunn (Georgia)
Whyche Fowler (Georgia)
Alan J. Dixon (Illinois)
J. Bennett Johnston (Louisiana)
John Breaux (Louisiana)
J.James Exon (Nebraska)
David L. Boren (Oklahoma)
Ernest Hollings (South Carolina)
Chuck Robb (Virginia)

Republicans who voted against Thomas

Jim Jeffords (Vermont)
Bob Packwood (Oregon)


Discussing politics online is just way too aggravating. I just need to stop for my own peace of mind.

[dark_crystal]

Basically, we trashed our oceans to preserve one company's profit margins.

So, who failed? Was it the company who shifted half its responsibility to "municipal recycling systems, if funded and supported by government agencies"?

Capitalist rhetoric says we have to blame the consumer. Governments would have better-funded and more successful recycling programs if consumers demanded them, or even used them, but they didn't and they don't.

That is a tactic for maintaining the status quo. Anytime the rhetoric can shift the blame to a million end-users of a product instead of tracing a problem back to its root and holding the original decision-makers responsible, change becomes less possible.

I mean, the lag time for my family between all products shifting to plastic and the arrival of our first curbside bin was at least a decade. Shouldn't someone have required Coke to shift their packaging gradually, market area by market area, as recycling became available in each area? We should not have had plastic on our supermarket shelves until we had bins on our curbs.

The Guardian: Neoliberalism has conned us into fighting climate change as individuals (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/jul/17/neoliberalism-has-conned-us-into-fighting-climate-change-as-individuals). By Martin Lukacs

Would you advise someone to flap towels in a burning house? To bring a flyswatter to a gunfight? Yet the counsel we hear on climate change could scarcely be more out of sync with the nature of the crisis.

The email in my inbox last week offered thirty suggestions to green my office space: use reusable pens, redecorate with light colours, stop using the elevator.

Back at home, done huffing stairs, I could get on with other options: change my lightbulbs, buy local veggies, purchase eco-appliances, put a solar panel on my roof.

And a study released on Thursday claimed it had figured out the single best way to fight climate change: I could swear off ever having a child.

These pervasive exhortations to individual action — in corporate ads, school textbooks, and the campaigns of mainstream environmental groups, especially in the west — seem as natural as the air we breathe. But we could hardly be worse-served.

While we busy ourselves greening our personal lives, fossil fuel corporations are rendering these efforts irrelevant. The breakdown of carbon emissions since 1988? A hundred companies alone are responsible for an astonishing 71%. You tinker with those pens or that panel; they go on torching the planet.

The freedom of these corporations to pollute – and the fixation on a feeble lifestyle response – is no accident. It is the result of an ideological war, waged over the last 40 years, against the possibility of collective action. Devastatingly successful, it is not too late to reverse it.

The political project of neoliberalism, brought to ascendence by Thatcher and Reagan, has pursued two principal objectives. The first has been to dismantle any barriers to the exercise of unaccountable private power. The second had been to erect them to the exercise of any democratic public will.

Its trademark policies of privatization, deregulation, tax cuts and free trade deals: these have liberated corporations to accumulate enormous profits and treat the atmosphere like a sewage dump, and hamstrung our ability, through the instrument of the state, to plan for our collective welfare.

Anything resembling a collective check on corporate power has become a target of the elite: lobbying and corporate donations, hollowing out democracies, have obstructed green policies and kept fossil fuel subsidies flowing; and the rights of associations like unions, the most effective means for workers to wield power together, have been undercut whenever possible.

At the very moment when climate change demands an unprecedented collective public response, neoliberal ideology stands in the way. Which is why, if we want to bring down emissions fast, we will need to overcome all of its free-market mantras: take railways and utilities and energy grids back into public control; regulate corporations to phase out fossil fuels; and raise taxes to pay for massive investment in climate-ready infrastructure and renewable energy — so that solar panels can go on everyone’s rooftop, not just on those who can afford it.

Neoliberalism has not merely ensured this agenda is politically unrealistic: it has also tried to make it culturally unthinkable. Its celebration of competitive self-interest and hyper-individualism, its stigmatization of compassion and solidarity, has frayed our collective bonds. It has spread, like an insidious anti-social toxin, what Margaret Thatcher preached: “there is no such thing as society.”

Studies show that people who have grown up under this era have indeed become more individualistic and consumerist. Steeped in a culture telling us to think of ourselves as consumers instead of citizens, as self-reliant instead of interdependent, is it any wonder we deal with a systemic issue by turning in droves to ineffectual, individual efforts?

[Martina]

And in the US, it's mainstream Dems who've lead the way on this. It was all meritocracy instead of workers organize.

There's an interesting critique of yoga now as a sort of a personal empowerment while ignoring not just poor people (duh), but a dying planet. Given how many of us are suffering from lifestyle related illnesses, it's hard to fault people for trying to live and be well. Also yoga can be anti-consumerist. But if you think of the resources that were poured into it by the well educated elite while so little energy was directed at climate change at a time when it would have mattered. . . .

I think what appalls people is their belief that yoga or meditation would lead to a better world. It definitely leads to a better life, but does it turn people away from politics and social activism?

Perhaps. Certainly there is something solipsistic in these and other practices. But I don't think the ideology is the explanation. It's that in the US, it is a movement formed around the interests of the professional classes. People do not betray their class interests easily. People of all races put class interest first. People born into poverty who have entered the professional class, their political behavior is almost indistinguishable from those whose parents were from the professional classes.

Neoliberalism is the ideology of the professional class within the construct of Capitalism. It does nothing to stop the inevitable self destructive arc that is the heart of Capitalism and that will eventually take most of them down too, but for the last fifty years it has made their lives more flush and given them power. The Cheney's of the world don't die with 100 million in the bank. But they got to drive the machine that is making the wealthy wealthier. Why that feels so good I can't say.

We endlessly criticize poor white people for voting against their best interests, but the professional classes have too by supporting Clinton and others, including Republicans, who tell them they have won the meritocracy sweepstakes while the biggest transfer of wealth has been from the professional classes to the extremely wealthy.

If the working class is desperate, the professionals are showing their pathetic asses. The college cheating scandal tells you all you need to know about what they will do to keep their edge.

[ksrainbow]

I may find your efforts on your local/state/national level more appealing for the House and Senate races.

Why I ask is this...Your voting record is public for all local/state/national issues from your past to present.

IF your record can not be sustained/maintained in the current legislation: then maybe going back to your initial impact on positive policy change can/may/will impact the next. Your vote will secure your base there.

One step at a time-

Ks-

[dark_crystal]

Neoliberalism is the ideology of the professional class within the construct of Capitalism. It does nothing to stop the inevitable self destructive arc that is the heart of Capitalism and that will eventually take most of them down too, but for the last fifty years it has made their lives more flush and given them power. The Cheney's of the world don't die with 100 million in the bank. But they got to drive the machine that is making the wealthy wealthier. Why that feels so good I can't say.


First, a caveat:

It Takes A Village To Determine The Origins Of An African Proverb (https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/07/30/487925796/it-takes-a-village-to-determine-the-origins-of-an-african-proverb)

"If you want to go fast, go alone; but if you want to go far, go together."

That was one piece of advice passed along at the just-concluded Democratic National Convention. The words were spoken by New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, who said he was quoting "an African saying."

The proverb got a lot of retweets. And some criticism. One Twitter user, Christiana A. Mbakwe, said, "If someone starts an aphorism with 'there's an African saying' it's probably a mythical quote misattributed to a whole continent."

That wasn't the only purportedly African proverb uttered at the DNC. Hillary Clinton referred to her 1996 book It Takes a Village, whose title is said to be part of another saying from Africa: "It takes a village to raise a child."

Second: despite that caveat, that "African Proverb" has been on my mind a lot

"If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together."

We’re here, at the end times, because we did not go together.

The patriarchs wanted to go fast, instead, and now they’re stuck. They can’t escape their fate unless they go back to the first people-- women-- they left behind and pick them up. Then the next, the next, and the next until everyone has their shoes tied and their backpack on, now we all step off in unison, one, two.

The thing is, they knew what they were doing. They knew going fast would ruin everything-- that’s why every tradition has an apocalypse narrative.

This consumption, this population-- even before the pollution, the extinctions-- they knew: this can’t go on forever. Infinite growth on a finite planet always had to end in catastrophe. The math was there before the problems manifested.

They distracted us from the math by teaching women to think beyond the planet. They told us not to be worldly, your reward is in heaven. Be fruitful and multiply!

And the patriarchs most emphatically are not going to go back and correct the mistake of choosing fast over far...
They would rather die. They have decided. They would rather all of us die than consider sharing anything at all.

Social media is prime example of going fast when you should have gone together. The men that invented social media were coders. They did not bother to ask any social scientists what the pitfalls could be or how best to proceed. Now we have bad actors poisoning our brains.

[dark_crystal]

"If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together."

We’re here, at the end times, because we did not go together.

The patriarchs wanted to go fast, instead, and now they’re stuck. They can’t escape their fate unless they go back to the first people-- women-- they left behind and pick them up. Then the next, the next, and the next until everyone has their shoes tied and their backpack on, now we all step off in unison, one, two.


This is why it pisses me off when people act like social justice is a distraction from more important issues, that we are wasting time on it.

Clearly i am on twitter TOO MUCH, but i think about this tweet a lot:
"Conservatives: Lets round up Muslims and put them in camps. Liberals: HIRE MORE WOMEN GUARDS." (@historyinflicks)
The implication here is that liberals can't see the forest for the trees. We are so focused on equality that we can't see that the system we're trying to make equal is already fucked up.

i get it, but "hire more female guards" is not as ridiculous as implied. The point is not that we need to hire more female anything NOW, but that EVERY job should have been half women from the beginning.

There were decisions made centuries ago that are part of what will destroy us, and those decisions were made and implemented by a very narrow slice of humanity. And now, when we are in a place where we have to try to undo those decisions, the progressive wing of that very narrow slice is insisting that worrying about gender inequality is something that should wait until the planet is not on fire.

The planet is on fire because we let it go on as long as it did. It is clear from the actions of the GOP that THEY are willing to leverage racism and misogyny to distract THEIR base long enough to finish the job of burning the planet. Whether progressive men like it or not, we're completely gridlocked by bigotry.

If we have to spend another decade fixing bigotry, we're going to be a lot closer to the abyss before we start clawing our way back from it, but when bigotry is how they did it and how they keep doing it, bigotry is what you have to fix. People are only in denial of this because it is so monumental. How do you even start?

By electing a woman President, duh.

SERIOUSLY: DUH! They're criminalizing our bodies, the GOP used our bodies and Obama's birth certificate to buy the entire South, and white male Democrats still think they might be the answer?

I felt different a week ago, but post-Alabama/Georgia? Biden, Bernie, Beto, De Blasio, Hickenlooper, Insley, Ryan, etc. ALL need to just sit their asses down.

There is no qualification they can have that we need more than we a female face in that office. It is (and it WAS, in 2016) worth nominating a woman just because she's a woman-- we have reached a point (especially post-Trump, who couldn't be less qualified) where the symbolism really does matter more than the individual's qualifications. "No more old white dudes" really is the most powerful message we can send.

Just looking at the rage that came out when we had a black President, and how that rage has led the ragers into following the shittiest person alive into global suicide, should be enough to destroy the argument that it shouldn't matter whether the Democratic candidate is a white man.

It does suck that we have to fix racism and sexism before we can fix the planet, but that is not liberals being distracted, that is us fighting the battle on the ground where our enemies pitched it. They are (very, very successfully) using racism and sexism to destroy the planet.

Thinking we can skip fixing that and fix the planet first is the exact same old "going fast instead of far" mindset that invented social media without wondering whether you could rig an election with it.

Warren 2020

[C0LLETTE]

Branding.

Love the "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act".
Hate "Obamacare".

Love "Social Democracy".
Hate "Socialism".

Just a thought:
I think many would support "social democracy" if they really understood what it meant and it didn't have the word "social" in it to raise the spectre of "socialism". Branding seems to work in America so maybe it's time to rebrand and move ahead.

Or, just wait it out:
"The big story here is the growing enthusiasm for socialism among younger Americans. Whereas only 27 per cent of over-65s have a positive view of socialism, according to an Axios poll conducted in January, 61 per cent of those aged 18-24 do."
Which doesn't mean everyone understands the term ( some thought it meant being "sociable") but at least it's in the right direction.

Globe and Mail May 17, 2019

[dark_crystal]

As i mentioned ion a previous post, the US suicide rate has increased 30% since 2000 (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/health/us-suicide-rate-surges-to-a-30-year-high.html):

Suicide in the United States has surged to the highest levels in nearly 30 years, a federal data analysis has found, with increases in every age group except older adults. The rise was particularly steep for women. It was also substantial among middle-aged Americans, sending a signal of deep anguish from a group whose suicide rates had been stable or falling since the 1950s.

The suicide rate for middle-aged women, ages 45 to 64, jumped by 63 percent over the period of the study, while it rose by 43 percent for men in that age range, the sharpest increase for males of any age. The overall suicide rate rose by 24 percent from 1999 to 2014, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, which released the study on Friday.

The increases were so widespread that they lifted the nation’s suicide rate to 13 per 100,000 people, the highest since 1986. The rate rose by 2 percent a year starting in 2006, double the annual rise in the earlier period of the study. In all, 42,773 people died from suicide in 2014, compared with 29,199 in 1999.

Yesterday i was on the Galveston Daily News website and i was reading the comments under a story on projected sea level rise, and 90% of commenters (most of whom can see the Gulf of Mexico from their houses) were calling climate change a liberal hoax perpetuated by money-hungry academics.

The reason US evangelicals are so rabid about Israel is because they need for the geopolitics of the situation to go a certain way so the apocalypse and rapture can hurry up and get here.

What i am saying is that the "dark cancer" is a death wish that has taken over about half of the population.

Our species as a whole is suicidal.

We've always had a suicide switch hiding inside of us-- you can see this in the apocalypse prophecies that feature in so many religions. Those are there because we know there has to be an ending to our story, because we also know, instinctively and subconsciously, that our existence is unsustainable-- just the mathematical fact of exponential population growth within a finite environment has a bad ending coded in from the beginning.

I think the suicide switch in our evolutionary makeup was triggered in 1945 when we dropped the first nuclear bomb. Our ending began that day-- as soon as it became possible for man to destroy life on earth, it also became inevitable on a long enough timeline. We know that, deep down, and we've been waiting for the other shoe to drop ever since.

What's happening now is that more and more people are tired of the suspense and just want to get it over with.

That is why we have Trump/Brexit/Marine le Pen, Bolsnaro, etc. If enough countries slide off the rails and into nationalism, the cooperation we need to save ourselves becomes impossible.

Deep down, a lot of people want that. We can't save ourselves without some discomfort and a big slice of the population would rather we all die instead of cutting consumption of anything at all.

Its not Rs vs Ds, or progressives vs liberals-- it's Team Apocalypse vs Team Carry On-- except all of the infighting and purity testing we have in certain corners of Team Carry On makes me think the suicide bug has bit a lot of us, too. Like, let's take a decade-long time-out right here, with one minute to midnight on the Doomsday Clock, and throw a couple of elections so we can break the back of the two-party system.

I would like to enter Australia's election result today (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/australia-holds-elections-with-labor-party-looking-to-regain-power/2019/05/17/f661d2ea-7705-11e9-a7bf-c8a43b84ee31_story.html?utm_term=.4694fd5a80ba) into the suicidal species evidence list

[C0LLETTE]

For those who believe that "liberalism" is the sad slow death of us all,
I'd like to recommend reading Adam Gopnik’s " A Thousand Small Sanities: The Moral Adventure of Liberalism".

Or, you can follow this link:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canada-is-the-model-liberal-nation-and-should-embrace-it/

If you get over the word "Canada" and read this opinion piece, maybe there is a healthy conversation for us to have here.

Adam Gopnik is Canadian/American and a staff writer for the New Yorker.

[Kätzchen]

For those who believe that "liberalism" is the sad slow death of us all,
I'd like to recommend reading Adam Gopnik’s " A Thousand Small Sanities: The Moral Adventure of Liberalism".

Or, you can follow this link:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canada-is-the-model-liberal-nation-and-should-embrace-it/

If you get over the word "Canada" and read this opinion piece, maybe there is a healthy conversation for us to have here.

Adam Gopnik is Canadian/American and a staff writer for the New Yorker.

That's a very good news agency website out of Canada, C0LLETTE. I'll check up on that book recommendation for Adam Gopnik, for my summer reading adventure. Thank you! (f)

****************************
**************************
************************
**********************
*******************
****************
*************


Lately, I've been thinking, due to really shady maneuvers by the GOP (in any Republican controlled US state or even in US Congress) to upend the lives of women and case law concerning Women's Rights and upending Brown vs Board of Education, and shoving the US-Supreme Court to the far right, that maybe it might be a good idea to match the level of the insanity we see by DC Admin and, in general, the GOP (wasn't that refreshing to see a US HOR GOP representative part with party politics and call out that horrible monster in DC???), is to f*cking smash the glass-ceiling and elect not only a woman to be US President, but US Vice-President too.

Here's what came to mind, the other day:

US President: Elizabeth Warren.
US Vice President: Kamala Harris
US Attorney General: Adam Schiff
Governor Jay Inslee -- Chief of EPA.

(and the list goes on....)

While we're at it, a woman should be nominated to head the VA, The Pentagon and find a decorated staff of US Veteran Women to take positions in Foreign Affairs.

It's about time that the US throws it's weight behind a TOP heavy cabinet of women in VIP positions in Washington, DC.

I'm thinking positive by dreaming really BIG dreams and manifesting them into reality. It can happen, right? I definitely think so. The climate is perfect for the proverbial ceiling to be smashed.

[Martina]

I would be happy if Kamala, Warren, or Gillibrand were elected. They are qualified, tough folks. They are true liberals, one hopes not of the HIRE MORE WOMEN GUARDS type.

But I am old enough to vividly recall Margaret Thatcher, whose legacy in Great Britain is child hunger that almost matches the U.S. rate. I don't care what gender or race the person is. Or age. I just care if they can see the truth and have the strength to do something about it.

If we have to wait for racism to go away before we can fix the planet, were doomed.

[Andrea]

I would be happy if Kamala, Warren, or Gillibrand were elected. They are qualified, tough folks. They are true liberals, one hopes not of the HIRE MORE WOMEN GUARDS type.

But I am old enough to vividly recall Margaret Thatcher, whose legacy in Great Britain is child hunger that almost matches the U.S. rate. I don't care what gender or race the person is. Or age. I just care if they can see the truth and have the strength to do something about it.

If we have to wait for racism to go away before we can fix the planet, were doomed.

I may be overthinking this but I am wondering why you feel it acceptable to call candidate Kamala Harris by her first name but address candidates Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand by their last names.

[C0LLETTE]

What I like about "liberal thinkers and philosophy" is the strength to remain aspirational in the face of angry necrophilic reminders of past failures.
So what? Keep going, look ahead.

[Martina]

I may be overthinking this but I am wondering why you feel it acceptable to call candidate Kamala Harris by her first name but address candidates Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand by their last names.

I lived in California when she was AG, and that's how people referred to her. Not the Press, but ordinary folk discussing politics. Not sure why. But that's how I think of her now. She did a lot of good work as AG and was often in the Press.

Edited to add. Just got an email from her campaign soliciting donations. A quote:

Your past support has made our campaign possible -- and we’re counting on you to stand with Kamala in the fights ahead. Can you add another donation to Kamala’s campaign today?

[C0LLETTE]

I'd like to get a Beto O'Rourke tee shirt. I'm starting to feel that it will be a "rare collectible " quite soon.

[dark_crystal]

I'd like to get a Beto O'Rourke tee shirt. I'm starting to feel that it will be a "rare collectible " quite soon.

i have a button and a sticker from his Senate campaign. We went to a town hall

[dark_crystal]

I may be overthinking this but I am wondering why you feel it acceptable to call candidate Kamala Harris by her first name but address candidates Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand by their last names.

i noticed this about Hillary, too. It seemed gendered but then we call Bernie and Beto "Bernie and Beto." Also i say "Mayor Pete" and "Julian." I do say "Kamala" but i also say "Warren." I think i call everyone else by their last name

[C0LLETTE]

Trump has long said he'd like to have a Roy Cohn by his side but I believe he has found a Lavrenty Beria in William Barr.
If history is any lesson, Barr might want to be cautious putting all his eggs in that basket.

[cathexis]

Barr has way too distinguished a name to disgrace it. The "Barr", Burr, Stanton line were associated with very conscientious Southern families.

[C0LLETTE]

Barr has way too distinguished a name to disgrace it. The "Barr", Burr, Stanton line were associated with very conscientious Southern families.

Cathexis, I'd really be interested in reading more about the "Bar,Burr, Stanton" line if you wouldn't mind posting more information about this. Thanks.

[dark_crystal]

Cathexis, I'd really be interested in reading more about the "Bar,Burr, Stanton" line if you wouldn't mind posting more information about this. Thanks.

Me too

:|

[cathexis]

They are a line of people who deeply cared about making improvements in our country. All references are gathered from the surnames as known from their history.
Aaron Burr 1756-1836
Elder Mr. Burr began in revolver development in TN for the army. He served as Vice President in the Federal government, served in the Continental Army as well as a number of NY State offices including as the state's AG. This service was followed up with being elected US Senator from 1791-1797.

Will continue with Barr and Stanton in following posting.

[C0LLETTE]

Is Barr related to Burr?

[cathexis]

Elizabeth Cady Stanton 1815-1902
Served as a prominent suffragist, social activist, abolutionist, and champion for womyn's rights to include birth control. Ms. Stanton was active in the initiation of the suffrage movement and the protests at the NY Capitol.

Barr will be discussed in following post (don't want to get booted mid post. Thanks for your indulgence).

[cathexis]

John Watson Barr. 1826-1907

A private practice attorney until he was appointed judge in 1864 as a US District Judge for the District of KY. Mr. Barr began to advocate abolition of slavery as early as 1849.
He also organized several Union Regiments before returning to private practice.
Following, he was he appointed again into Federal Judgeship appointment from 1880 until retirement in 1899.

[ksrainbow]

I had hope that today's hearing would give a *glimpse*-
Reports thus far reflect there has been a *hick* up -

Ks- :hamactor: (or am I too hopeful)

[C0LLETTE]

Barr has way too distinguished a name to disgrace it. The "Barr", Burr, Stanton line were associated with very conscientious Southern families..

Hi cathexis,

Thanks for the research. Much appreciated, but, I guess, my question had to do with the line/connection between these people and Barr. This is intriguing.

[Martina]

Watching the debate. Omg Corey Booker attacked pharmaceutical companies. What a crock! They own his vote in the Senate.

[cathexis]

This is going to confuse the average, limited political person who is not able to pick apart this splintered debate. We have seen what happens when splinters occur.

There needs to be break out rhetoric.

[Martina]

I'm enjoying it. Castro kicked Beto's ass. Tulsi Gabbard called the Trump cabinet chicken hawks. Corey Booker and Di Blasio are saying all the right things and saying them well, but we know not to trust them based on their records. I am liking Inslee out of this bunch.

[Martina]

Clearly Rachel likes Castro. She soft balled a gun question to him. She is the least fair and objective journalist working outside of Fox. God, I dislike her. I think she likes Klobuchar too. She loves the centrists. Fuck her.

[kittygrrl]

I really like Castro..he is low key and reachable...and he's not a million or billionaire...i'm done voting for ANYONE who is super rich. If someone knows something negative in Castro history, please let us know!

I had liked Buttigieg but i think he has problems relating to people of color...not good...we can't afford to put someone in office who has clever answers but no real substance..

I'm finding this first set of candidates very interesting. i think they are passionate and have some great ideas. I just have this feeling the 2nd set will not be nearly so interesting..

[~ocean]

I am impressed with Gobbard ! as always NOONE said how they would change anything ~ they just repeated the questions with self boasting and with no answers .

[Martina]

I thought they all did a good job. Beto and Tulsi Gabbard seemed the least able. Tim Ryan was the next least able. Everyone else was on their game although I thought Klobuchar's toxic personality peaked out a couple of times. I thought they called on Warren too rarely, but her closing was awesome.

We are lucky to have so many good candidates. The only two of this bunch who might not be able to beat Trump are Gabbard and Beto, I think. I loved everything Di Blasio and Booker said, but I wouldn't trust either of them.

Inslee and Castro stood out for me.

Tomorrow it's Bernie and Kamala, Biden and Mayor Pete. Fucking Rachel Maddow will fall over herself enabling Gillibrand whom she loves. But onward. Yay Dems. You talked about poverty. Not enough. But you did.

I have to say fuck tax credits and even the increase in the minimum wage as priorities. TAX THE RICH! TAX THE RICH! Say it loud. Say it often.

[cathexis]

Noone in this lineup has me all that impressed. Warren has some pretty progressive ideas, but to distinguish between her and Sanders will be difficult.
Also, I don't know about hearing her grating voice for 4+years. It really is kind of whiny.

[MsTinkerbelly]

I wasn’t impressed by any of the candidates tonight, and I’m finding it hard to be inspired by the people running this time. Maybe because there are so many of them to listen to? It all becomes a bit blah, blah, blah after awhile...my brain just shuts down.

I wasn’t impressed by RM tonight, but I LOVE HER any other time. I have gained so much insight into topics that I had no background in; she explains issues so that I can understand and retain the information. She does appear a bit centrist to me, but so am I, and so is MOST of this country.

The far left candidates have almost no hope of being elected...I know you all don’t like to hear that, but after tRump, people are going to want what seems to be “normal” and safe.

Anyway, if I had to vote today, it would be a Harris/Warren ticket.

[dark_crystal]

I thought Castro, Warren, and Inslee performed well. Booker said a lot of good lines, but he just does not seem like a grownup to me.

A lot of tweeters praised de Blasio's performance. I have not really looked into him bc he did not have the air of viability to me. This morning on a hunch that his record is too recent, too verifiable, and too compromised to help him, i googled "de Blasio record"

New York Post: Does de Blasio really think it’s a good idea to run with his record? By Michael Goodwin (https://nypost.com/2019/05/18/does-de-blasio-really-think-its-a-good-idea-to-run-with-his-record/)
Earlier this year, de Blasio summed up his politics with a ­salute to socialism: “Here’s the truth, brothers and sisters, there’s plenty of money in the world. Plenty of money in this city. It’s just in the wrong hands!”

For once, he was being honest, because de Blasio sees wealth, success and even public order as enemies of the people. He has held that view for most of his life, with him and his wife sneaking into Cuba for their honeymoon, followed by his work for the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.

That the Castros and Sandinistas were anti-American was not incidental to their attraction.

De Blasio hid his radicalism for years as he toiled away in the City Council and as public advocate. He was a go-along, get-along nobody until he pulled off a stunning upset in the 2013 mayoral primary.

He did it by doing a left-end run around better-known candidates, becoming the harshest critic of the NYPD and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He courted Al Sharpton and made a TV ad famous for the large Afro of his mixed-race son, Dante, efforts that got him nearly half of the crucial black vote. He won the general election in a landslide.

Thus, in a matter of months, de Blasio ripped off the center-left mask he wore for a decade to become the far-left “progressive” we see now.

That background might have national appeal if his mayoralty were a success. But despite vows to attack income inequality, he is a disaster for those who depend on public services.

His school policies offer a prime example. Unable to move the needle on the racial achievement gap, de Blasio wants to impose quotas on top schools.

The plan is hitting strong opposition from Asian Americans, who could lose 50 percent of their seats in high schools where admission is based on a single test. That success comes despite the fact that many Asian students are among the poorest in the city and grow up in immigrant households where English is not spoken.

But instead of trying to duplicate that miraculous achievement among black and Latino students, de Blasio wants to abolish the entry test.

Conspiring with unions, he even wars against charter schools that prove race and class are no barrier to academic success. The mayor also makes it nearly impossible for schools to suspend unruly and violent students.

In schools and elsewhere, de Blasio never lets facts get in the way of ideology. He has decriminalized more and more crimes and wants to close Rikers Island to redistribute criminals to low-security “green” facilities in residential areas. He aims to add 90 homeless shelters to spread around that pain, too.
I don't know if this article helped me assess de Blasio's national chances, but...

it was QUITE an enjoyable read, on a petty level, just for the right-wing whining. That writer sounds like an asshole, and he's hissing and spitting like a wet cat, here. This sparks joy.

[Andrea]

We watched Jeopardy in the third quarter instead of the debate so I may have missed some interesting or important stuff but the following is my take:

- 10 people debates are useless.

- Warren speaks well, has actual plans for how she will implement the many changes I am interested in seeing, and she has a very strong background of having worked towards changes in the past.

- Booker seems to be only focused on his current small world and didn't seem to be able to expand concerns for the whole country.

- de Blasio..... He may have good ideas but I wouldn't know. Every time I see or hear about him, I think about how his wife "used to be a lesbian" and I spend time working through that.

- Castro is a very strong candidate and I think he would make a good president. I feel like he gets lost in the male candidate pack though.

- Klobachar and Gabbard both speak well but I can't get past personal information about each of them.

- Delaney seemed shocked each time he was called on like maybe he was daydreaming and not paying attention.

- The other three white men? They must have been on stage but I don't remember them. :)

Currently my fantasy is a Sanders/Warren, or Warren/Sanders, ticket because I really like where they are pushing us and because I like how they plan to accomplish getting us there.