Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_TParticipantMy own take is that Trump’s rationale for making nice with Russia is essential to consider. It makes the attempt beyond empty for me.
It’s also vital, IMO, to consider what he’s done around the world. It’s not as if he’s tried to reduce tensions anywhere else. In fact, he’s raised them, threatening Iran with regime change, Venezuela with military invasion, even Mexico with the same.
He drove us to the brink of nuclear war with North Korea, prior to kinda sorta defusing the crises he created. And he’s attacked our allies without mercy, throwing much of the world into chaos.
If he were an actual peacenik, I’d feel much differently about his overtures to Russia. But he’s anything but that. Who hasn’t he attacked or threatened, other than Russia?
===============
I dont really care about his ‘rationale’ (I assume it is always just a reflection of his narcissism, etc). All that matters to me is Russia’s nukes. I want the threat of nuclear war to be reduced.
And i think he’s done that. I think he met with putin and he said “hey, whats with this election interference?” And putin goes, “Seriously? You people have been interfering all over the world for decades, LoL”. And trumpy goes, “I know, I know, now lets tell the press weve discussed it and the world is safe from nuclear war.”
So far, I’d say Trumps foreign policy is better than Bush’s.
w
vBut does Trump’s personal overture to Putin do that? I really don’t see how. I can’t see how his personal connection changes the nuclear dynamic at all, given the fact that so much exists outside Trump’s actual control — as in, any president’s. The massive amount of weapons are there. The Pentagon is still there. Our thousand bases around the world are still there. Our history of conflict is still there.
How does Trump’s acceptance of Putin’s help/cyberattack alter any of that? If Putin is crazy enough to launch nukes in the first place, I honestly don’t think Trump and Putin playing nicey nice will stop him.
Also worth considering: No American president since Kennedy has come remotely close to “going there.” At least that we know about. HRC wouldn’t have struck first either. It would mean the end of the world. MAD, etc. So, really, how is Trump better on this issue, if nukes are the key factor?
Billy_TParticipantI think the FBI has changed since Hoover.
One example…the FBI no longer thinks left wing radicals are the biggest threat to the country. They now believe homegrown white wing extremist groups are the biggest threat (ie Michigan Militia, 3 Percenters, the various neo Nazi and Klan groups, etc.).
Which is in direct opposition to the rightwing narrative that the biggest threats are illegal immigrants and Muslim extremists.
Now, I’m not saying the FBI is completely trustworthy because I don’t think they are, but it is telling that they are no longer marching in lockstep with the rightwing.
But wouldn’t you say they tilt conservative? I know that’s a huge generalization, and pretty much impossible to “prove.” But I don’t think Law Enforcement, the military, the intel spheres, etc. . . . have ever been big draws for us leftists.
I’d bet the corporate world in general isn’t either.Hope all is well, Nittany.
Billy_TParticipantI’ve been reading a lot about the american FBI in my book on the Black Panthers. The FBI basically were murderers. Just flat out, murder. Hoover felt he was at war with radicals. He called them the biggest internal threat to the US in existence.
I dont see any reason to think they are better now, than they used to be. I mean why would they be?
I am at the point where i wouldnt trust a single solitary thing that comes from the F.B.I. I mean, I’m sure they tell the truth sometimes, but how would i know when?
Thats just me, of course. I know that view is not shared around here, and thats totally cool. Just sharing my own disgust with that subpart-of-the-System.
w
vThing is, they’ve been under Republican control since before it was even called the FBI. They’re famously right-wing, even hard right — which Trump is too.
So, to me, the entire attempt to claim a “deep state conspiracy against Trump” is absurd (Not saying you’re doing this, WV). If it (the deep state) exists at all, the vast majority of it is going to be more sympathetic to Trump and the GOP than their political opponents.
Ironically . . . this may be changing — somewhat at least. No serious research to back this up, so I’m just winging it here. But it seems like the latest wave of Dem candidates includes a lot of ex-military. Yeah, it includes the Ocasio-Cortezs too. But she’s, tragically, an outlier. I think the Dems are doing their best to own “the center” and they see the military as a great place to start.
Billy_TParticipantI also have no doubt that he insisted on a private meeting with Putin, without any witnesses, in order to craft clandestine responses to the Mueller probe. I think he tipped his hand when he brought up the far-right, tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory regarding the email servers and the Pakistani. This has already been thoroughly debunked.
But, IMO, it wasn’t just the usual attempt to deflect, distract and gaslight — though it was all of those things. I think it’s a sign of things to come from the Russia/Trump/GOP coordination/collusion efforts. Two hours is more than enough time to discuss plenty of “false flag” operations, and the planting of evidence to go after Dems or never-Trumpers.
He’s not above this. He’s a sociopath. He’s not above anything, when it comes to his own survival.
PS. I think dozens of Republicans are also guilty of seeking help from the Russians to win their elections, and that this is ongoing. They’re not just trying to protect Trump from Mueller. They’re trying to protect themselves.
PPS. If Dems engaged in anything similar, they need to be held accountable too.
Billy_TParticipantMy own take is that Trump’s rationale for making nice with Russia is essential to consider. It makes the attempt beyond empty for me.
It’s also vital, IMO, to consider what he’s done around the world. It’s not as if he’s tried to reduce tensions anywhere else. In fact, he’s raised them, threatening Iran with regime change, Venezuela with military invasion, even Mexico with the same.
He drove us to the brink of nuclear war with North Korea, prior to kinda sorta defusing the crises he created. And he’s attacked our allies without mercy, throwing much of the world into chaos.
If he were an actual peacenik, I’d feel much differently about his overtures to Russia. But he’s anything but that. Who hasn’t he attacked or threatened, other than Russia?
Billy_TParticipantAllz-I-Know-Iz…I believe we leftists need ‘at least’ two languages, two sets of memes, two sets of tactics…..One for talking to the MSM and joe and jane centrist voter — and another language for places like this board.
Chomsky used to complain about the ‘concision’ problem. Its a problem for leftists who appear on tv and radio. Possibly, one way to deal with it is to use the Bernie approach — just stick to three or four practical policy points and hammer the hell out of them. “medicare for all” (the language is critical), “free college”, “livable minimum wage”.
He avoids all the complexities of ‘socialism’ etc and so forth. At least on tv he does. I’m sure in his inner circle he has a different language and more depth, etc.
Maybe this would work:
Tucker C: Are you a socialist?
Leftist on tv: I believe in medicare for all.
Tucker C: Are you a socialist?
Leftist: I believe in medicare for all. I believe the average person should get the same health care rich folks like you get. If you want to call that socialism, ok.
…and avoid Immigration talk at all cost 🙂
w
vw
vAgreed. Not saying it’s the same thing, as far as existential threat, but it’s similar in tactics to the way blacks in America have had to change their speech depending upon the audience. Blanking on who said it first. W.E.B Dubois, perhaps?
And Medicare for all is a great example.
Billy_TParticipantPerhaps the way to bridge that gap is to say: Democratic socialists are more than willing to push social democratic policies, on the way toward achieving actual socialism — Medicare for all, a living wage, cradle to grave free public education, etc. etc. But they still have the ultimate goal of fully democratizing the economy and socializing ownership of the means of production. Social democrats don’t have those goals. They are fine with Scandinavia as end-goal.
We socialists want more.
Democratic socialism vs social democrat…
What we want vs what is achievable.
I became interested in democratic socialism in college. But it is no more of an achievable goal than it was way back then. If anything, less so. Capitalism is too imbedded in our society to be rooted out. Not in my lifetime anyway.
So it comes down to the practical versus the illusory hope.
I think forcing a muzzle on capitalism is at least theoretically doable. I think that’s an attainable albeit really ambitious goal. The millennials are sorta sniffing around that hole already.
You’re free to disagree of course, BillyT.
Perhaps social democracy can be a waypoint on our way to democratic socialism – the ultimate goal. When asked about the Vikings’ defensive philosophy, Keith Millard used to say that they tackle the RB on the way to the QB. 😉
Hey, Nittany,
I definitely think it’s important to remember what is doable, versus the theoretical. But recent times have shown that what we once thought was impossible no longer is. See the entire Trump presidency.
The left (in general), IMO, fails by holding back, always holding back on the sphere of the Imagined, though it never comes close to the Dems in this regard. The Dems in power are positively afraid of their own shadows. They’ve got people holding their thumb in the wind to find out if it’s okay to send other people out to hold their thumb in the wind, etc. All that does is preempt any discussion of alternatives to our present nightmare. It just cedes victory to the bad guys.
To me, it’s “negotiations 101” to always ask for more than you think you can achieve. By sliding back to that and asking just that, you’re going to get less, which means less than you’d get if you ask for more, typically.
(I’m betting that was clear as mud!)
Anyway . . . I also think this is the case right now: Even social democratic reforms are a tall task in this atmosphere. Next to impossible. So why not push the Overton Window as far as we can beyond that. Wouldn’t that make those SD reforms appear closer to the “middle”?
Billy_TParticipantAll logic and common sense tells us that we could produce the same goods and services under a different system of control, one that isn’t obscenely limited to owners of capital.
As in, no, “capitalism” isn’t necessary for the operation of a functional economy, and capitalism itself has demonstrated beyond a doubt it’s terrible at the fair allocation of resources and rewards. And that, of course, is perfectly logical. What would anyone expect?
Give power over the economy to just the few, and of course they’re going to do what’s best for themselves. It’s absurd to think they wouldn’t.
Billy_TParticipant“we in america became anti-intellectual about socialism…”
This video was interesting too.
O’Donnell has said, on air, that he’s a democratic socialist. But I disagree with a couple of things he said here. To me, the conventional wisdom that asserts “We need capitalism” is absurdly wrong, and any close look at economic history proves this.
America wasn’t a “capitalist” society until after the Civil War, and the entire human race somehow managed to survive roughly 300,000 years without it.
I think too many Americans confuse it with commerce, trade and “business” in general, when it’s a specific economic form, not commerce itself, etc.
Capitalism is a specific social, legal, economic form of commerce that cedes all control of commerce to the few, the people who hold “capital.” In this system, capitalists purchase labor power (as a commodity) to produce commodities for money. C-M-C and exchange value. It’s all about who controls this, not about commerce itself, or production itself. Who calls the shots? Who owns all of this? Who gets to decide everything along the way? That’s what makes “capitalism” unique and unprecedented.
Billy_TParticipantPerhaps the way to bridge that gap is to say: Democratic socialists are more than willing to push social democratic policies, on the way toward eventually achieving actual socialism — Medicare for all, a living wage, cradle to grave free public education, etc. etc. But they still have the ultimate goal of fully democratizing the economy and socializing ownership of the means of production. Social democrats don’t have those goals. They are fine with Scandinavia as end-goal.
We socialists want more.
Btw, as I’ve said many times, I’d love America to have that Nordic model. It’s waaaay better than ours . . . and its results prove that. They live longer, healthier lives, and are happier. They do kick our butts on pretty much all the quality of life metrics. So if the choice is solely between our neoliberal model and the Nordic one, I definitely choose the latter, and eight days a week.
(We should also keep in mind that even the Nordic model has taken hits from right-wing centers of power in recent times, and is not in practice what Scandinavian social democrats would prefer.)
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 2 months ago by Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantI liked Kulinski’s discussion about the differences between democratic socialism and social democracy, though it needed much more fleshing out. At first, I thought he was a proponent for the former, then he said he was a social democrat instead. I think he’s right to note the differences, especially that democratic socialism is a post-capitalist philosophy — one that calls for an end to capitalism, which is absolutely necessary in order to democratize the economy/extend democracy to the economy.
If the economy is democratized, it is no longer “capitalism,” by definition. It’s something else.
Social democrats prefer to keep capitalism in place, but seek reforms and a stronger social safety net. They want the Nordic model, basically.
But he confused me by saying that, whether we like it or not now, the two terms are interchangeable. Personally, I don’t see how that’s possible, given the ginormous differences regarding capitalism.
Billy_TParticipantHow do you think Cornell did in this discussion?
I think West was off his game, and didn’t fare well against Carlson’s (groundless) attacks. Btw, is that Carlson’s normal look? It’s basically a permanent “WTF” while West is talking. Wonder if it’s an affectation, or he just can’t help himself.
As for Kulinski’s review . . . He confused me at first, but then I pretty much got what he was trying to say by the end. I disagree with parts of it (and strenuously), but generally it holds up well for me.
To me, there is no need to add “democratic” in front of “socialism,” if the subject is just about the philosophy itself, and not how to achieve it. As in, “socialism” has democracy baked in. In fact, the entire point is to democratize the economy and add the economy to the — one might say — “political” democracy outside it. The only reason, IMO, to add it is to distinguish between possible routes to socialism.
My own is that this must be done through non-violent, democratic means. That makes me a “democratic socialist” too.
July 13, 2018 at 12:13 pm in reply to: One of the most comprehensive looks at Trump collusion, evah. #88090Billy_TParticipant<
I throw in analogies, and they fall on deaf ears . . .
.=================
Allz i know iz, this is important. This exchange about ‘socialism’, progressives are having with Lib-Capitalists and Rightwing-crazies.
I see the same exact pattern playing out over and over and over, whether its an MSM talker asking Bernie about socialism or Ocasio-cortez being asked about it on Fox, etc, etc, etc. And its been the same exact dynamic for many years.
The Capitalists/rightwingers are WINNING the tv-debates. (not among leftists but among joe and jane voter)
Leftists need to rethink their answers to the “its never worked” and “its killed a 100 million people”.
We need to study on it. We need better, quicker, sharper answers. To win the average propagandized voter. Keep an eye out to how others answer it. Maybe someone out there has figured out a good tv-answer.
Lefties win the ‘debate’ while righties are winning the ‘voter’ — if that makes any sense. …what do i know 🙂
w
vWell said. All of it. But especially the last sentence.
And that makes me think about this, too: Marx and other leftists took it for granted that the “proletariat” would remain with them, and for generations into the future. That turned out to be a bad assumption. They may in fact be providing winning margins for far-right parties all over the globe these days, and the union vote in America is now up for grabs. It may just be leaning Republican these days, though I haven’t done the research on that.
I think one of the really smart things Ocasio-Cortez did was to stick to concrete policies, and not try to fight in terms of theories. Which ties me into this, too: I’m almost finished with a book of essays by Dwight MacDonald, an old leftist — with most of the essays being from the 1950s and 60s. He talks about Germany’s history of obsession with Theory, and our history of obsession with Facts, mostly from the angle of weaknesses in both obsessions. He was quite the curmudgeon, but well worth reading. Anyway, I think his point is similar to yours. It doesn’t work in America to trade theoretical arguments. People here want to deal with what they consider to be “facts,” which opens up still another can of worms, of course:
Competing visions of what they are, etc.
I think I’m writing myself into a depression, so will exit stage left for a bit.
;>)
Hope all is well with you and yours.
Billy_TParticipantBut, to me, the hypocrisy levels are off the charts…
Only in America.
———————–
Well we are talking about Replicants here. The hypocrisy levels are virtually always off the charts.
At least Dark Lord Sauron wasn’t a hypocrite. I’ll give him that. I mean he was all “I’m going to destroy the world, fuck you all.” Ya know.
w
vTrue.
There’s something to be said about being true to one’s evil. I think Baudelaire probably wrote something close to that in his Fleurs Du Mal, but I haven’t reread him in some time.
;>)
So, WV, what is to be done? I keep wavering about this. Give up on politics entirely, and in the limited time left me, listen to good music, spend time with friends and family, eat well, travel when I can . . . Or stay in the game to the extent possible. I do know the first option is the “healthy” one, and the second one is its opposite.
Billy_TParticipantWell I’m not disagreeing with your big-picture-points, Billy, but the FBI Agent handed them this stuff on a platter. Very unprofessional. You canNOT be texting private-negative things about someone you are investigating. Any lawyer would impeach a cop if he did that to a defendant.
Again, I’m not addressing the big-picture stuff. It just irks me that the agent was that stupid. Cuz…it…was…stupid. I’d have fired him just to send a message. Its a big big mistake. Not a little one.
w
vI agree that it was stupid. Seriously stupid. He never should have done this on government equipment. But, to me, the hypocrisy levels are off the charts, because Republicans were saying far worse things about Trump at the time, and many from his own administration have as well. It appears that the norm is to call him a moron and worse, especially if you work for him.
If saying “mean things” about Trump were a firing offense, it would have cleared out half of DC back then — for good or ill.
I’m also not a fan of private communications between consenting adults being selectively leaked/the subject of a hearing, unless there’s probable cause before their disclosure of crimes being committed by said consenting adults.
There weren’t any.
As in, why no concern for Strzok/Lisa Page’s civil rights and civil liberties? The Republicans held hearings concerning Carter Page’s and FISA warrants, which were re-upped four times by four Republican judges. Of course, they never even mentioned the possible abuses of that system against anyone but Carter Page — not the truly powerless who get caught up in the net of government surveillance, etc. etc.
Oh, and to put a cherry on top, the day before that hearing they reauthorized the FISA program.
Only in America.
July 13, 2018 at 11:02 am in reply to: One of the most comprehensive looks at Trump collusion, evah. #88081Billy_TParticipantWell you know i disagree on some of that, but we’ve hashed it out and no-one’s gonna change their mind at this point.
I hope Russia interferes on the side of Bernie this time.
w
vThat’s bad, WV.
;>)
On Sanders, etc. etc. I’m very hopeful about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She is a star. If the Dems had thousands just like her, I think America would be in a vastly better place.
Which brings me to a side-note and question:
Why do you think this is all too often the case? I’ve been having discussions on other boards, when I’m up to it, about “socialism” recently. When the term “democratic socialism” is mentioned, I try to remind people about some of the great thinkers, humanitarians, peace advocates, civil rights advocates, who carried that banner, but it always seems to just fall flat.
I remind them that the following held that philosophy: MLK, Gandhi, Einstein, Camus, Orwell, Helen Keller, Dorothy Day, Bertrand Russell, Alexander Dubcek and Andrei Sakharov, for starters . . . and it generally elicits crickets.
Any guesses why that doesn’t seem to change any minds regarding the idiocy of viewing that philosophy as scary or dangerous?
================
If you want to practice your rhetorical skillz….watch FOX news. Watch how they handle the ‘socialism’ thing. They always, always, always go thru the same exact talking points. Which means — itz easy to prepare for them.
For starters Foxers always start with the same argument — “its never worked anywhere”, and then they move on to “Stalin, Soviet Union….its killed a hundred million people…”
So, if libs and leftists want to talk about socializms, they need to have sound-bitey, quick, sharp answers to that point.
…if yer gonna talk to amerikan-humans about politix, study, Fox-News. The evil-brilliance of Fox is in how they get right to the blunt-point. No hemming and hawing and qualifying and explaining — they hit you right in the face, with quick hard sound bytes. They are masters. Leftists are trying to do Chomsky and the Foxers are doing Mike Tyson. Er somethin. I dunno.
Libs use the same framework as Fox, so studying Fox works for dealing with libs too…
w
vGreat point on the Fox News method. Complexity can be our enemy, and simplicity their friend.
I try to fight back against “socialism has failed every time it’s been tried” by demonstrating that it hasn’t ever been tried, outside small enclaves and small-scale practice, and I provide examples of that. I’ll post the Chomsky video, for instance, where he just shreds the idea that the USSR was “socialist,” but that falls on deaf ears too.
I throw in analogies, and they fall on deaf ears . . .
Chicken salad has long had the same basic ingredients. Basically, chicken, chopped celery and mayo. If someone comes along and changes that to liver, BQ sauce, Brussel Sprouts and almond butter, but still calls it chicken salad, does it make any sense to condemn “chicken salad” if you hate it?
I also try to break down the basic tenets in a fairly simply way:
1. Socialism extends democracy to the economy. It democratizes the economy, which means capitalism no longer exists.
2. We the people own the means of production, not “the state,” or political parties, or juntas, or dictators. We the people, directly.
3. Your home and your personal “stuff” is yours, not commonly held. Under socialism, the Commons stops at your gate.
If the above don’t exist as the legal standard for a society, that society can’t be deemed “socialist.” Yes, you can have “socialist policies” within a capitalist context, but the nation itself can’t be called “socialist.”
Again, on deaf ears. Oh, well.
Billy_TParticipantI don’t really know why I put myself through it, but I watched a good deal of the hearings too.
Key takeaways for me:
1. The Republicans hounded Strzok for nine hours, repeatedly going back to the same exact aspects of the case, with the barest of deviations in language. I suppose they were trying to get him on a “gotcha” moment of inconsistency, but it was deeply frustrating to watch.
2. I didn’t realize this was fair game, but Republicans often handed off their allotted time to their more aggressive and determined peers, which generally meant the same two or three designated attack dogs. I didn’t see the Dems do this, though I didn’t watch the entire nine hours.
3. I don’t think there is any way around this fact, but it never fazed the Republicans, and the Dems appeared not to bring it up, at least while I was watching:
If the FBI can be accused of taking any actions to influence the election, it was all to the benefit of Trump and against Clinton. If Strzok had wanted to hurt Trump, he would have leaked that Trump was under federal investigation, but he didn’t. Comey did tell the country, twice before election, that Clinton was being investigated, but would not say that Trump was too. And we also know that FBI agents in the New York office leaked info regarding Clinton to Giuliani, which he promptly spilled on Fox News. That office was called “Trumpland” for its “bias.”
This follows a more general pattern for the GOP in their endless hearings about supposed “bias” against “conservatives” and now Trump. Don’t mention, don’t investigate the fact that government departments are filled with a wide array of differing political views, or that the Law Enforcement sphere has always been dominated by the right. Whether it’s the IRS or intel or DOJ, make sure not to look at “bias” in favor of Republicans, or bias against their opponents, etc. Just narrow the frame to work solely in their favor.
Wikileaks, of course, helped tremendously here, concentrating solely on the Dems.
4. It’s amazing to me that Congress chooses to have hearings on private texts between two adults, which included perhaps “mean things” about a president that both Republicans and Dems despised at the time . . . but won’t hold hearings on the Trump administration’s kidnapping of babies at the border, endless corruption within the Trump executive, the destruction of the environment, the selling off of millions of acres of formerly protected wilderness, and our endless wars — for starters.
Our politics have never been much to brag about, but I think they’ve reached new lows. This hearing was an example.
July 13, 2018 at 9:59 am in reply to: One of the most comprehensive looks at Trump collusion, evah. #88075Billy_TParticipantAny guesses why that doesn’t seem to change any minds regarding the idiocy of viewing that philosophy as scary or dangerous?
Well names don’t matter if you’re caught in some blinding assumptions.
I just think that the only course is just to keep chipping away at the assumptions.
Or, to use a term you can’t use in those discussions, ideology.
Just remember. A journey of a 1000 miles begins by tying your shoes.
…
Makes sense.
Of course, using the term ideology should be fair game. When talking about MLK, Gandhi, Einstein, etc. etc. I mention “vision” a lot, and how the Dems and the entire country should embrace their vision.
The debates are generally with both centrist Dems, who reject most of the left (it all too often appears), and with those much further to the right who associate “socialism” with their go-to number of 100 million deaths, etc.
My attempts, which mostly fall on deaf ears, as mentioned, are to associate “socialism” with human rights, civil rights, workers’ rights, peace movements, instead — which is the case, historically. In America, as you know, leftists in general tend to be well in advance of anyone else when it comes to the vast majority of social and economic justice movements/issues/policy ideas . . . with those to their right, including liberals and moderates, joining the peace train much later in the process.
This is not taught in American schools, at least until select university courses, and it’s still rare there.
July 12, 2018 at 3:30 pm in reply to: One of the most comprehensive looks at Trump collusion, evah. #88034Billy_TParticipantWell you know i disagree on some of that, but we’ve hashed it out and no-one’s gonna change their mind at this point.
I hope Russia interferes on the side of Bernie this time.
w
vThat’s bad, WV.
;>)
On Sanders, etc. etc. I’m very hopeful about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She is a star. If the Dems had thousands just like her, I think America would be in a vastly better place.
Which brings me to a side-note and question:
Why do you think this is all too often the case? I’ve been having discussions on other boards, when I’m up to it, about “socialism” recently. When the term “democratic socialism” is mentioned, I try to remind people about some of the great thinkers, humanitarians, peace advocates, civil rights advocates, who carried that banner, but it always seems to just fall flat.
I remind them that the following held that philosophy: MLK, Gandhi, Einstein, Camus, Orwell, Helen Keller, Dorothy Day, Bertrand Russell, Alexander Dubcek and Andrei Sakharov, for starters . . . and it generally elicits crickets.
Any guesses why that doesn’t seem to change any minds regarding the idiocy of viewing that philosophy as scary or dangerous?
July 12, 2018 at 2:21 pm in reply to: One of the most comprehensive looks at Trump collusion, evah. #88031Billy_TParticipantI find a great deal of it compelling:
___
And this article really bugs me, regarding Glen Greenwald. I think Chait just nails him to the wall. Of course, he likely takes him unfairly out of context in this case, but I’ve read enough by GG, and seen enough of his videos, to accept Chait’s conclusions.
Glenn Greenwald Tells Russians Liberals Are Blaming Them As Excuse for Clinton By Jonathan Chait
The problem, as noted, with claiming that the Russia meddling story is nothing but an excuse for Clinton’s loss is that the probe began the summer before the election. It would have required some amazing Back to the Future wizardry to have known the results at that time, and to set up that excuse before hand.
Plus, all the intel heads currently, appointed by Trump himself, say, Yes, Russia did in fact interfere in order to help Trump and hurt Clinton. The GOP-led Senate panel also confirmed this recently. And the most consistent critics of Russia/Trump on this matter have been Republican never-Trumpers, not the Dems. They aren’t making excuses for HRC’s loss. They’re actually focused entirely on what Russia did.
Again, it’s perfectly logical and compatible to hold all of these views at the same time:
1. The Trump organization colluded with Russia to tilt the election in Trump’s favor — though I think this was primarily about debt, improving Trump’s business prospects, access to new sources of cash, etc. etc. rather than actually winning.
2. HRC was a terrible candidate, ran a terrible campaign, and should have won regardless of Russian interference.
3. The Dems make a massive error if they think they ran the right candidate, campaign, agenda, etc. etc. and don’t need to make any (major) changes.
4. Discussing this doesn’t increase tensions with Russia. They’ve always been high. And ignoring it just gives Russia the green light to do much more in 2018 and 2020. It’s pretty clear they want the hard right to win in America, Europe and wherever they can impact elections. We to prevent this push.
5. Yes, we interfere all over the world, too. But it’s never made any sense to think we should go fetal because of this. It’s really the case that two wrongs don’t make a right, and no one but the hard right benefits from our abdication — out of some bizarre adherence to claims of “hypocrisy.”
I agree with you. Personally, I would just as soon leave the entire “dems blame russia/some leftists blame the dems for blaming russia” routine out of it in entirely. In fact mostly I do.
Like you, I find I can pay attention to the issues with russia and with russia/trump without paying the least bit attention to that routine I just named.
….
I agree with your agreement.
;>)
It’s interesting. I think we’ve now gotten to the point where the real “obsession” lies with folks like Greenwald. Their insistence that this is only about the Dems making excuses has become monotonous, and increasingly seems to be out of step with current events as well. Like Trump’s bizarre trashing of NATO, before he goes on to meet Putin without any witnesses.
Hope all is well with you and yours.
Billy_TParticipantPersonally, I wish we’d talk and do more about getting rid of that long climb up the ladder and the ladder itself, rather than focusing on “breaking glass ceilings” for this or that oppressed group.
I in no way dispute the fact of their oppression. Quite the contrary. The evidence is overwhelming for women and ethnic, religious, sexual minorities, the handicapped, etc.. In fact, one of the main reasons why I think we should do our best to tear down pyramids is because that’s the most comprehensive way to end mass inequality — social and economic injustice, discrimination, etc.
By definition, if we concentrate on diversifying the richest 1%, or the most powerful via other means, we’re not doing a thing for the bottom 99% of each of those beleaguered communities.
The fastest road to equality is to remove the neck-breaking hierarchies themselves, and the legal structures that support them.
Obviously, that’s a tall order, and it won’t be easy and it will take a long, long time. But by ignoring this, we just keep generating mass inequality, which keeps getting worse and worse, not better. It’s centuries past time to at least take the first step.
Billy_TParticipantSusan Collins flatly stated she would not support a judge who would overturn RvsW. She said she was opposed to “activist” judges, and that they would look at the written judgments, and she would not support a judge who “went out of bounds” to push new interpretations and laws.
I think she’s a No on Kavanaugh.
We lefties in Maine see Collins as a problem who often says “the right things” to keep her job in a blue state, but, is never ever to be fully trusted. So we’ll see on Collins. Hope you’re right.
I’m betting she votes for Kavanagh. My guess is no Republican breaks ranks with Trump on this one, and that two or three Dems side with him too.
These hearings, pretty much ever since Bork, purposely reveal next to nothing about the nominee. They’ve been coached so well on the non-answer, senators have plenty of cover to vote their way. I suspect Kavanagh will speak in vague platitudes and won’t reveal anything regarding Roe, etc. etc. so Collins and Murkowski are safe to remain in the fold.
The right has basically won, because there is no authentic opposition from the only party that could muster it, given our monopoly/duopoly system.
Billy_TParticipantI just cannot believe how insanely bad Trump is. I haven’t read the news yet, but I see he is bombing NATO right now, according to the headlines. Seriously, you literally could NOT draw up a fictional president who could realistically do more damage to the US’ relationship with its allies than what Trump is doing. How can there be any doubt that he is controlled by Putin at this point?
He’s trashing Germany today, saying they’re in the thrall of Russia because they signed a deal on Natural gas. Well, we had major trade deals with Russia all through the Cold War, including under Reagan’s presidency.
But one thing that really puzzles me, as far as no one mentioning this in the Media:
If Trump is supposedly so worried about our tax dollars going toward “protecting” NATO countries, and how this is such an unfair burden on Americans . . . He and the GOP just got finished jacking up Defense spending in the latest budget, and bragging about it. One would think that if spending too much on Defense is the issue, that means the actual budget overall too. But, apparently not.
Billy_TParticipantSpeaking of rule from the minority:
We’re living in an age of minority rule
This factoid is pretty striking:
Why do I say that a vote in Kavanaugh’s favor is an example of minority rule? Because the body that will confirm him is built in its current formation to almost guarantee Republican control, despite the fact that most American voters selected Democrats to represent them there.
Using Dave Leip’s invaluable election atlas, I added up all the votes cast for Democrats and Republicans in the 2012, 2014 and 2016 Senate elections, which put the current Senate in place. I didn’t bother with the few special elections since 2012, which in total wouldn’t change the results much, but I did include Bernie Sanders’s and Angus King’s last elections, since they are nominally independent but caucus with the Democrats. Here are the results:
Republican votes: 102.3 million
Democratic votes: 117.4 million
In the elections that determined the current Senate, there were 15 million more votes cast for Democrats than for Republicans. Yet Republicans maintain control and therefore get to confirm President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.
Billy_TParticipantA key problem for the Dems, IMO, has been this — at least since they’ve been moderate Republicans:
When they return to power, they are adverse to reversing what the Republicans have done. The Republicans are very, very aggressive in reversing what the Dems have done. That’s been the dynamic, give or take, since the early 1970s, and it includes the courts and the Court.
The myth and meme of “liberal activist judges,” for instance, has dominated our political narratives, but the fact is, it’s been “conservative activist judges” and congresses, and presidents, and governors, etc. etc. that have dominated.
They see this as war — and pretty much everything as a “culture war,” and they have never shied away from overturning precedent. The Dems, OTOH, when they return to power, don’t return the favor and accept the status quo they inherit as the new baseline. The new normal.
That’s a huge reason why we keep moving further and further to the right.
Billy_TParticipantAnother thing that isn’t helping the Dems win over fence-sitters or anyone to their left:
When it comes to Congress, legislation and the Courts, the Dems tend to accept the previous baseline created by extremely aggressive Republican activism. They tend not to try to reverse clearly odious and radically reactionary changes, when they get their shot at the captain’s chair. This just means our political “center” keeps moving further and further right, and the coming Supreme Court battles will highlight this for those paying any attention.
Precedent. Contrary to right-wing bellyaching about “activist liberal judges,” it’s always been their own judges who seek radical change and often get it. The so-called liberal judges actually tend to accept precedent, even terrible precedent, like Heller, Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, etc. etc. and rarely even mention overturning any of those decisions.
Which is bizarre, given that all of them went against previous precedent, and radically so.
It’s yet one more huge and destructive way in which our political “center” keeps moving rightward, and it hurts every American and the planet.
Reactionaries work aggressively to overturn precedent. So-called liberals accept the new baseline. World without end.
Billy_TParticipantAnother strange dynamic in play for the last few decades:
The Republican Party seems to actually fear its “base.” With exceptions, it tends to do what its base screams for, and with urgency.
The Dems, OTOH, strike me as holding their own base in contempt at times, and they haven’t acted with urgency since the 1960s. They certainly don’t fear them, and they sometimes openly mock them. I think it’s safe to say the distance between Dems in office and the Dem rank and file is a great deal larger than any gap between Republicans.
This also helps Republicans win and keeps would-be Dem voters home.
Billy_TParticipantIn my view, Democratic Party centrism gave us a whole lot more than just Trump.
With their rightward rush after the 1960s, it paved the way for Reagan, both Bushes, a slew of reactionary judges, mayors, governors and Congresses, before, during and after the token (largely faux) pushback offered by Clinton and Obama, who also governed from the center to center-right.
In the absence of any authentic opposition, the American right was able to move from its fringe position prior to the early 1970s, into near-dominance of all levers of power today.
The same thing is taking place in Europe.
Refuse to give the people any actual choices, especially on economic matters, and a goodly portion will succumb to fear and scapegoating, especially of the Other. They’ll go with the people who promise them a quick end to their fears.
Billy_TParticipantWell but to me thats like saying Orcs should be more like elves. Ya know.
w
vWell, if you consulted your Tolkien, you’d see that orcs were decended from elves; their bodies and minds twisted by the evil Melkor…
The point being, the orcs were forced to be who and what they are. They had no choice.
Unlike the orcs, the dems have a choice – they just choose to be greedy.
___
All of that reminds me of this quote:
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
[Kung Fu Monkey — Ephemera, blog post, March 19, 2009]”
― John Rogers
Billy_TParticipantThat was very, very good. It’s exactly what the Dems should have been saying and doing for decades, and that particular candidate has “star” written all over her, in the best way. Not in the cynical way.
================
Well but to me thats like saying Orcs should be more like elves. Ya know.
The Dems havent been doing and saying that because…they are dems. Wall-street loving, Corporate loving, Rep-Lites. Its who they are. Mostly.
But not totally.
Maybe another defeat at the hands of Trump is what they need, before there can be a Dem swamp-draining. I dunno.
w
vI’m speaking more in historical terms, really. It may just be me getting old and seeing through the fog of time, but my memory of the Dems is that they really were different 50 years ago, and that they really have shifted radically to the right, chasing corporate money to catch up to the GOP. Thomas Frank writes about that as well. We both could be wrong, but it rings true for me.
Not that they were ever “radical.” Far, far from it. Not within light years of that. But they were at least solidly center-left. Now they’re solidly center-right.
(No reason for a “Third Way.” We already have the Dems, etc.)
This is an interesting tweet from a Dem rep who admits as much. Kinda surprising:
“Democrats don’t just represent progressive values, we also represent the middle & even the middle right because of how far the #GOP has shifted,” Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) tweeted Tuesday night.
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 2 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
