Interview with David Sirota, creator of the new Audible podcast series about the aftereffects of the 2008 financial crash, produced by Oscar-winner Alex Gibney's Jigsaw Productions
It's even worse. In order to coverup the failure/betrayal by Obama and the Democratic establishment, the party had to vilify half the country - anyone who didn't vote blue, no matter who - as ignorant, uneducated, resentful racists, conspiracy-nuts, and now insurrectionists and selfish anti-vaxers. As the coverup continues, it's clear to them that the only "solution" is Big Tech censorship to eliminate all social media "misinformation" that seems to be riling up the rabble. This is the way a society, not just an economy, falls apart.
I think that when this time is over (if we are still a free country) a lot of people are going to be back pedaling from what they did in the last two years - the dishonesty - the vitriol- the demonization and persecution of anyone with a different political opinion - the loss of an impartial justice system - the total impunity to treat other peole like dirt in the name of being virtuous. People are going to look around and say, “Hey! I was never a part of that - it wasn’t me”. But a lot of us who have had to live through it will never forget what this time felt like
It has been eye opening. Obama droned American citizens with out a Yelp of outrage. There are now political prisoners. I have worked, saved, paid taxes since 1972 and am now vilified for my sex and skin color. Never forget
It's a form of demonic possession -- in the manner of Doestoevsky's THE POSSESSED or Camus' THE PLAGUE.
“All I can say is that on this earth there are pestilences and there are victims– and as far as possible one must refuse to be on the side of the pestilence.”
― Albert Camus, The Plague
Shame on all who fomented this. Shame on them.
And shame on the people who embraced it willingly for profit or personal gain -- or even out of cowardice -- and looked the other way
COVID Vaccines do not immunize you, as there are too many "BREAKTHROUGHS". How do you even determine a "Breakthrough":
CDC - A Vaccine BREAKTHROUGH infection is defined as the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen in a respiratory specimen collected from a person ≥14 days after they have completed all recommended doses of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized COVID-19 vaccine. (If you only have the "antigen" and not COVID are you still positive?)
Potential for False Positive Results with Antigen Tests ...
At 0.1% prevalence, the PPV would only be 4%, meaning that 96 out of 100 positive results would be false positives. Health care providers should take the local prevalence into consideration when …
That test is being used until DECEMBER 31, 2021 as the CDC is only pulling it NOW when they knew about it as far back March of 2020.
28 days between shots + 14 days is 42days to be considered vaccinated. If a person dies FROM the vaccine, you will never know because they are considered UN VACCINATED and usually die within 2 weeks of first jab.
IF they die on the 41st day they are considered UNVACCINATED. Israel and UK keep track of vaccination deaths. Hear, they are just Unvaccinated deaths.
VAERS REPORT: "During this time, VAERS received 9,143 reports of death (0.0022%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it's unclear whether the vaccine was the cause."
Evidently VAERS last report was July 2021. There is a "Summery Report" 10/29/2021. But the report will only be up to July.
Belief structures resist easy objective validation. That's true. The best western ethics, religion and ethics have been able to do is call ethical truths "self-evident". But self-evidency isn't self evident to people embedded in belief structures.
One strange but true story related by Joseph Campbell in "Oriental Mythology" were the funeral rights of dead Egyptian pharaohs. Typically an entire cast of servants and staff would be buried alive with the pharaohs corpse to accompany him across the life-death divide. This was a common ancient practice in the near east (and possibly globally). Even in 1830 Campbell tells the story of a young teen girl in India whose husband died. She and her family believed it was her religious duty to bury herself alive with the husband's corpse. And she did without the slightest hesitation.
Belief structures about reality are incredibly plastic and fluid. It's hard indeed to form objective judgments -- that's been a main project of western though since the Greeks. Somehow circa 2000 BC or so near-eastern humanity abandoned the group burial and did it all through abstractions using illustration. But in historical time that wasn't very long ago.
It's a huge topic, of course, not easily treated in sound-bite comments. But yes, the vaxxers could easily persuade themselves antivaxxers are a threat to humanity. I don't think science would support that view, but that wouldn't stop them.
It makes death more palatable if they think it's just a passing through stage. That means to be freed from slavery, all they have to do is wait for the next life. You're worthless here but next time you might have a chance.
Lots of stories are written, and those supporting ritual death usually had the power to shape the narrative. WWII Germany was an exception, and from there we have unvarnished accounts from the victims.
The death of democracy in America has been pronounced more times than the expiration of Jason Voorhees (“Friday the 13th”). The question is whether it was ever alive to begin with.
According to a report prepared for Congress by William Sheridan, white vigilantes committed more than 2,000 “political murders”, largely of blacks and radical Republicans, during the first 10 years of Reconstruction in Louisiana alone. Similar body counts were recorded in South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi. Democracy has long been America’s favorite blood sport.
Although that would be a positive/hopeful thing, I don't see it happening. The other TKNews story got me thinking about how a person develops a BS detector. Is it genetic, did we get it from our upbringing, does the education system teach us that, is it learned behavior? In my puny and superficial brain I have arrived at --- personal interaction is major. We personally interacted with people growing up. Our folks told us stories about their personal interactions. We older people have had the benefit of personal interaction with our world. Are most interactions anymore (like this one) through a machine? Do all these people primarily using the machines for their contacts with other humans now have any idea of how to detect BS? Or lies. Or how to experience empathy.
With mask mandates, the pandemic and our government has now cut off facial expressions from one another. A friendly handshake? Dr. Fauci says it needs to go.
So how in the hell is anyone supposed to learn to empathize with anyone anymore? To your point, no one is going to back pedal (quaint term). Our federal government is sending the message: "Whatever happened needed to be done."
*I have seen reporting that the reconciliation bill establishes universal pre-K AND a requirement that you have to have a Bachelor's Degree to "teach" pre-K. Grandma, "You're fired."
It is so important right now for all of us to find "others" like ourselves, ie, who see the truth of what is happening. I have a heightened appreciation for my family and friends that I am traveling through this turbulent time with.
This is my experience as well. Although I have loved arguing politics my whole life, not only can't you do THAT anymore, even the most mundane topic leads to disaster.
I mentioned to someone that I felt bad for people on the West Coast who are in the path of all the terrible fires (empathy), and said I'd seen a report that someone igniting bear urine in some kind of ritual had started one of the fires (science/humor). The response? "Yeah, stupid people, like that guy in the buffalo hat that stormed the Capitol." WTH? It's insane.
I’ve had to push the reset for sure. Distancing from some who, like you say, you can’t discuss anything with, and other friends who I’ve pulled closer to and even made new friends. It’s no fun being with the old friends who you have to self censor with. One friend actually said she could talk to her Republican friends better than me. We haven’t had much to talk about since then!
There it is, I also find the republicans more to my liking, so our little interchange is doomed. You see, I like Trump because he an incendiary device, his bloated personage, his bloviating, his lies when caught, his proud ignorance - it’s all a great comeuppance for the democrats and their pandering, virtue signaling, Obama’s soaring rhetoric and now their need to coverup for the sundowner in chief.
I am toast, I’m done, my good will is gone and I blame the hypocrites on your side (my former side) financed and complicit with the elite, Wall Street, MSM chattering class they have brought forth the Trump monster and I revel in it: wonderment.
I read that book in grad school, and it is flawed, to say the least. Kind of an intellectual precursor to “White Fragility”-all Germans were born to kill Jews, nothing that could be done.
This ongoing insanity is by design, that much is obvious. I only wonder if the goal is "only" their "D"espicable totalitarian power with one purpose: steal as much as possible while the power is absolute, or something more sinister is planned. (a destruction of the USA, which seems almost as plausible as the first outcome)
By “destruction of the USA” you mean the elites positioning themselves to reign over a nation of impoverished similar to China. This had already happened and will only get worse.
Why can’t people see that we no longer have democracy. The Supreme Court killed democracy by voting 5 to 4 for Citizens United. They decided that “corporations are just like people”. That stupid decision has allowed a flood of corporate money to flow into Congress. No member of Congress has to go home and ask for money anymore. They just stay in DC and live off of their corporate sugar daddies. Voters no longer have a voice in government. Corporations have the only voice. It is grotesque that Democrats campaign to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. It was George Bush who gave that gift of prohibition to Big Pharma. Congress has sat on its hands for decades watching US citizens get ripped off by Big Pharma. That George Bush gift could have been changed any time, but they care more about corporate contributions than they care about citizens. If Citizens United is not reversed, we will never get our democracy back.
There is no difference between Pfizer spending for political ads or a CNN (or FNC or NYT) news report.
Think about it.
Twenty years ago many of us hoped the internet would change things forever. Maybe it has or still can. It's what the money guys are trying to censor, after all.
And restoring a legitimate news media. (ending the fake corporate media monopoly and coordinated big tech censorship). Substack and other independent journalism is a good start.
While we're at it, let's get the unions out of it, too. This is not a one-way street funded just by those entities. Unions give $$ to candidates to "bring home the bacon" just like corporations do. In both cases, the money corrupts the process. Let's focus on that, rather than who pays it.
Other countries have PUBLICLY funded elections. No corporate money, no union money, no private money. Just public money. The winners win on their merits, not based on how much they raised. All candidates have the same amount of money to work with. This is how we can get our democracy back.
So would you consider democracy having worked if a majority votes to steal the labor of workers and give it all to non-workers? Because that is exactly where we are headed. We already have more than half the country that doesn’t pay federal income tax and most of that group actually receive federal money from any number of over 80 means tested welfare programs. A family of four can get over $100,000 a year in other people’s money without working a day. Is that “democracy”?
More than half the country? I know a lot of people and I know of no one doing that. How many people do you know, and how many are doing that? Yeah, that's what I thought.
I think you are buying into fear mongering. Go out, meet more people, turn off the internet and radio and just live a little. It's not as bad out there as you think.
LOL. I’m not taking about people I know. I’m taking about government data that shows how many people make or don’t make enough money to pay federal taxes.
I don't disagree, but is money the problem, or a legislative structure that prevents another party/candidate from a fair shake in the election process? I sincerely believe "None of the Above" could now be US President.
Citizens United wasn't about direct contributions to candidates or campaigns but about advertising apart from campaigns. Granted, the ads could make a particular candidate look bad but, again, that's no different than what a traditional news outlet can do in an editorial or news report.
Citizens United was NOT about "advertising apart from campaigns."
Citizens United took the shackles off the big spenders, and overturned 100-year old corruption laws. With Citizens United the majority of the Supreme Court essentially said: "independent" spending by corporations and big donors simply CAN'T be corrupt, overturning 100-year old anti-corruption laws.
"A 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court sided with Citizens United, ruling that corporations and other outside groups can spend unlimited money on elections.
In the court’s opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limiting “independent political spending” from corporations and other groups violates the First Amendment right to free speech. The justices who voted with the majority assumed that independent spending cannot be corrupt and that the spending would be transparent, but both assumptions have proven to be incorrect.
With its decision, the Supreme Court overturned election spending restrictions that date back more than 100 years. Previously, the court had upheld certain spending restrictions, arguing that the government had a role in preventing corruption. But in Citizens United, a bare majority of the justices held that “independent political spending” did not present a substantive threat of corruption, provided it was not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign."
"The justices who voted with the majority assumed that independent spending cannot be corrupt and that the spending would be transparent," Yeah, and I've got a really nice bridge to sell you. A close examine of 5 bank accounts might be more to the point.
They didn't get there by being stupid or naive, so no, they didn't really believe that. It was just their excuse for a corrupt decision - corruption that goes clear back to the original "corporate personhood" decision in the 19th Century. That decision flies in the face of the Constitution; it was conscious corruption.
It is always important to note that there was never a Supreme Court decision that created corporate personhood in 1886. In the case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road, there was a head note attached to the decision by a law clerk that had no force of law. Coincidentally, the law clerk had ties to Southern Pacific Railroad. In any case, the question was never discussed during deliberation, only inserted after the fact.
Ah yes, the corruption that Dartmouth University as a corporate body had limited personhood (that was early 19th century). It wasn't Union Pacific that originated the doctrine, though it did add it's own twist. Funny how things can go when politicians attempt to use tax law for social engineering.
Citizens United was exactly about advertising apart from campaigns. You may not like it because to a large degree it leveled the playing field i.e. ABCNNBCBS etc were putting a partisan spin on news for decades.
You know, that Brennan Center seems like its something that should be regulated.
You mean disseminating information. Suppose a fact isn't be reported by the media because the media gatekeepers are favoring a candidate. How do you get this fact to the public?
Money was (and "was" is in the appropriate tense) not the only electoral power that labor unions, when they were relevant, brought to the table. Their membership could use the the power of their numbers (since greatly diminished) to vote as a unit for one party or candidate. Political contributions, i.e. bribes, should never be the "be all, end all" of the political class. Money only corrupts the process. Organizing union members and other citizen groups around policies that benefit themselves should be the primary goal of our politics, not a horse race centered around who can raise the most cash.
"That stupid decision has allowed a flood of corporate money to flow into Congress"
Wow is that poor. Corporate donations were illegal in federal elections before Citizens United. Corporate donation were illegal after Citizens United. Check the Wikipedia page ('Corporate donations'). Quote
"n the US, corporations are prohibited from making expenditures to influence federal elections. Similar restrictions exist in many state elections and have been upheld by the US Supreme Court."
Citizens United, along with another ruling, also allowed for the creation of Super PACs which corporations can contribute unlimited amounts of dark money to. Political bribery and corruption have never been easier.
You need to go back to the supreme Court’s 1976 decision, Buckley v. Valeo, which equated money with speech. Buckley was precedence for Citizens United. Reversing Citizens United would be like chopping down the tree. We need to pull it up by the roots — reverse Buckley, which institutionalized bribery.
CU was just an extreme example of an existing condition. Corporate money flowed into congress before CU, and would continue to do so if CU was overturned tomorrow. “Corporations are like people” is the central premise of the notion of “corporations.” Historically. It just isn’t the case that CU is a dividing line between “democracy” and “post-democracy.” CU is a lousy decision that I’d like to see obliterated. But let’s not pretend it was the origin of anything — it was not. Money was corrupting politics long before CU. I get that there is something comforting in the notion that “if we could just kill the boogeyman (CU), everything would be alright.” It makes for a vision toward a more easily attainable good outcome — the “restoration of democracy.” But it is delusion. Overturning CU would be one step in the right direction. But one step in a long journey.
I would gladly take one step in the right direction. The second step would be more transparency. The term “dark money” was due to the many ways donations become difficult to scrutinize.
Interesting, since I've seen lots of congressional fundraisers in Michigan... and all Citizens United did was level the playing field between unions and corporation--which now are giving more to Democrats.
Can’t find any evidence that supports your claim but do see that more corporate donations have been to Democrat candidates vs republicans over past few elections so what’s your point?
Public Citizen reports that corporate donations total $539 million. Only four of the top corporate donors are publically traded. Most have billionaire CEOs. The top corporate trade group is the Chamber of Commerce which gave $143 million.
The first major benefactor of CU was Hilary Clinton. The second was Joe Biden. Please learn to read beyond the headline.
I follow the global pharma industry and know its costs and pricing model. I would love for Medicare to negotiate prices; I also know the consequences. Every other country in the world would see its prices rise high and irreversibly. AIDS drugs would be unaffordable in Africa. Anti-malarials would be priced beyond patients' ability to pay throughout the tropics. Anyone who believes that China is the only country that steals our intellectual property is drinking the Koolaid. Nearly every country that has the capability to manufacture drugs is also a thief, either intentionally or through willful blindness.
The other option is to stop research and development of new drugs. Orphan diseases will become incurable. The number of people with those diseases is approximately the same as the number of transgendered people. But, it's OK. Because people with orphan diseases don't vote as a single bloc for Democrats. They're disposable.
There are varying kinds of research. Basic research is funded by government grants in some areas. Long-term randonmized controlled trials are funded by the pharma companies. They are infinitely more expensive.
There are two exceptions. The first involved swine flu, where Gerald Ford had all research funded by government and then given away for free to private pharma manufacturers. The other is climate change.
You do understand that big Pharma spends more on advertising than drug research (most of which is spent on "me too" drugs rather than real breakthroughs? Simply ban drug advertising and "marketing" to doctors and that will more than offset any reduced corporate revenues. Also, most important drugs are the result of state NIH funding and then handed over free to the Pharma profiteers - thats especially true of orphan diseases. Your post reads like a Big Pharma set of talking points, utter BS designed to misdirect.
NIH does not fund the three levels of studies required before FDA approval. Big pharma has the capital to take that risk. Nine out of ten drugs that go thru the trials never get past the FDA. There is a symbiosis between scientific research by primarily academic institutions, much funded by NIH, and the pharmaceutical companies that can do the risk taking that simply has produced a myriad of life saving drugs during my lifetime, notwithstanding offending your ideological sensisbilities.
The NIH has a lot of power. The money they give out directs the way research is done. BARDA gets the nod from the NIH and they fund the trials. Big Pharma pays very little, and the taxpayer pays almost everything. Molupiravir was shelved because they feared people would not take the vaccine if COVID could be cured with a drug. Molnupiravir got funding throughout the trials and even the development of a manufacturing plant for 1.2 billion dollars. They do get funding for all phases of medicines they want to push out. Molnupiravir will be sold in the US for about $1000.00 for a 5-day course. It will be licensed to 100 countries so they can make generics for their populations. COVID was a national emergency, so BARDA paid everything.
For chronic illnesses like diabetes, high blood pressure, and dyslipidemia, trials are not funded. Generic drugs are repackaged and resold. Colchicine for Gout had been used for thousands of years. In 2011 the ten-cent pill went up to 5 dollars because a small change was made to the drug ingredients. The URL Pharma was allowed the price increase for three years. Recently insulin prices shot through the roof. Pharma takes an old drug off the market, makes a minor change, and sells it again. Other countries get the drug for less, but the guy in the US pays.
The US TAXPAYER IS PAYING HIGH PRICES TO SAVE THE REST OF THE WORLD. Is this compensation to BIPOCS in AFRICA for Western Colonization? Look at Hepatitis C Africa pays $5000. In the US, you spend $50,000, and we funded the Mavyret and Epclusa (for non-cirrhosis livers).
You've pulled this out of your ass---it's not only incoherent, grammatically it makes little sense. Where are your sources for this jumble of balderdash? What three levels of studies? Read the links I sent to Bill Heath moments ago. Get yourself educated---unless your mission here is to spread propaganda, in which case be a bit more careful and creative with disseminating your propaganda.
Cut it with the Big Pharma talking points, the state does the risk taking until it is much less risky then BP runs with it. The state could easily run with it, just look at what Cuba has achieved with the little that it has (given the US illegal blockade). Most real breakthroughs are state funded and/or through scientific devotion, not for profit. BP is already bribed through lengthy patents (which much of their "research" and copious legal fees go toward extending). It seems that I am offending your ideological sensibilities, which are completely blinkering your worldview. So no more oxygen from me for your pathetic BP talking points.
If you have such faith in govt research on pharmaceuticals you must equally find the process of military research and development to be just as clean and efficient.
So, in your universe, 6.58 > 83. Woke math? I suppose claiming the reverse is racist, homophobic, xenophobic and the list goes on. Please in the future read beyond political talking points.
Always so pleasant to hear from you. I thought I'd check the quality of your references. The first one is written by a couple of Canadians 13 years ago based on 17 year old data. Since then the biggest cost of bringing a new drug to market (total about $2.6B) is manufacturer-paid clinical studies requiring on average twelve-to-fourteen years.
Your second citation claims that marketing costs are 19 times "basic research." Of course, they are. Basic research is the quickest and cheapest part of the cycle. It's the extended clinical trials that cost money. Operation Warp Speed was a huge game changer.
You don't address the influence of required reserves to pay claims, many of which are frivolous, e.g., that male Aleutian Islanders who are pregnant and at greater than 60,000 feet altitude have an extraordinary lack of positive outcomes from the drugs. That's why it's so much more attractive to manufacture a Me-Too drug.
No point in going on. You'd just post more low-value links that demonstrate no understanding of the issues. Next time you need medical help call a DNC talking points author.
"....You don't address the influence of required reserves to pay claims, many of which are frivolous, e.g., that male Aleutian Islanders who are pregnant and at greater than 60,000 feet altitude have an extraordinary lack of positive outcomes from the drugs. That's why it's so much more attractive to manufacture a Me-Too drug...."
That's correct. I don't address "the influence of required reserves to pay claims, many of which are frivolous, e.g., that male Aleutian Islanders who are pregnant and at greater than 60,000 feet altitude have an extraordinary lack of positive outcomes from the drugs..."
Because that would be exchanging crazy talk with a crazy man. And I try to avoid that sort of thing, though I confess that I sometimes fail...
For anyone out there who would like an introduction to the perfidy of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, check out some of the links above, read them, and let them lead you to other similar links.
Do your own research. There are dozens of studies by reputable research institutions, scholarly trade journals and magazines, academic institutions, etc. that overwhelmingly and incontrovertibly show that Big Pharma is a Big Spender when it comes to advertising and marketing, and becoming ever more Scrooge-like when it come to research and development.
Big Pharma + Big Marketing = Big $$$$. Big Pharma has Big Smile.
On the other hand: Big Pharma + Big Research & Development = Not Real Big $. Big Pharma Frown.
Big Pharma Bad Habits Such As: eschewing research for new and needed drugs, because it's expensive to develop new drugs. Much cheaper and more profitable to flood market with variations of already existing drugs that have no improved therapeutic function, but will make lots of moolah for Big Daddy Pharmacy.
But don't take my word for it. Do your own research. And don't bother Bill. He's up in Unalaska negotiating with a few pregnant Aleuts, all of them men he tells me, and there are some complications owing to their altitude, 60,000 feet, or some damn thing of that nature....
But the ability of corporations to contribute to political campaigns only equalized the game, since labor unions had been the strongest supporters of the Democrats, who got far more contributions for the labor unions than the Republicans, until Citizens United (temporarily) equalized things.
In 2020 corporations gave far more support to the Democrats, partly through backdoor techniques such as the more than $100 million donated to Democrat-run cities and countries for "get-out-the-vote" efforts.
Any reversal of Citizens United would HAVE to end labor union donations as well.
You're kidding yourself if you think Labor Unions are even remotely close to influencing elections to the extent that Super PACs are or even were before Citizens United. Do you really think labor unions consisting of the working class have the finances to compete with Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce? I'm happy to take that trade-off any day of the week if it gets money out of politics but we all know that won't happen.
Workers unions have substantial amounts of money, since a portion of the "dues" is used for political purposes. Many of them made contributions of more than $20 million in 2020: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/top-organizations Of the top ten donor organizations, the Republicans got $510 million, and the Democrats $427 million; not a big difference.
If you look at your own link, you'll see unions are far down that list of contributors. Bloomberg and Adelson alone dwarf them and Bloomberg just happened to support the Democrats last year. He'll happily give to the Republicans and has in the past if the Democrats don't do as he wants (re: electing "nothing will fundamentally change," Joe Biden). None of its good.
Government unions contribute volunteers to Democrats' campaigns, replacing paid workers. None of that is counted. In some cases, if the government employee unions can't get someone to fill a slot otherwise filled by a paid worker, the union pays the salary for the worker, and none of that is counted either. If we get big money out of political campaigns, Democrats will find they're somewhere behind the Green Party.
The real money is corporate money that funds philanthropies, and lobbyists to social engineer the country. It is the Uniparty that funds this Lincon Project Republicans and Democrats. Both sides don't do anything to change the tax laws that Reagan put in place in 1981. The Economy Recovery Tax Act of 1981. The rich can make you a serf and they get a tax break to do it. No other country lets Philanthropy advocate policy
"Big Pharma" has been good for the U.S. We have the best access to medicines thanks to their research and testing (often a billion dollars from start of research before the approval process is completed, and sometimes the medicine is rejected by the FGDA).
Looking forward to watching the video, because this discussion in print is sort of off-putting.
". . .(R)ace certainly played a significant role . . ." in the Dems losing in 2016. Really? What if Trump would have run against, say, Colin Powell, or how about Oprah, instead of HRC? Why is race the go-to with Dems? I say this as a life-long Dem (until recently) who ran for and held local elective office as a Dem. Apparently NO discussion of the shortcomings of the Dem party can be had without prefacing that America is racist. Despite electing and re-electing an African-American President.
And the series is meant as a "wakeup call for the Democrats." Almost sounds like the White House Press Secretary saying that when they get the messaging right, all will be well.
"Corruption" is the word. Not only of financial policy, but of the concept of governance. In 2008 The Chicago Way took over the federal government. For readers who want some insight into what that means, dial up some articles by John Kass, who used to occupy the Mike Royko desk at The Chicago Tribune. Control is the end game.
The power that was wielded in taking care of the 2008 corrupt parties in need may look pretty subdued compared to what is going on now with the Attorney General and the Department of Justice. In 2008 the PTB stole our life-long earnings. They are now coming for our liberty and certain forms of dissent. Good times.
Trump never hid who he was, yet he got millions of votes. Even if he had not won that should have alerted the Dems to a problem. But at Organizing For America, victory is a number, and the real problems of the little people are just a news cycle management issue.
So true. Taibbi always pisses me off with the scraps of mind-food he throws to the "they're all racists" crowd -- as much as I respect most of what he writes, and I do respect most of it. But "race certainly played a significant role" . . . ??
Would you care to substantiate that Matt? If it's true, then how did Obama get elected twice? Or are you throwing tens of million of people under the bus just to keep the lefty-media cocktail party circuit safe going for you? (Just ribbin' ya dude, sort of . . . )
Cartoon journalism -- per the methods cited in Hate Inc. -- creates cartoon reality.
There are no citizens or fellow Americans in cartoon reality, no people just like you and me, imperfect and flawed, but basically average and wanting to get along.
Cartoon reality is a mass hallucination haunted by Jungian shadow projections, poltergeists, demons and assorted Great Satans. In cartoon reality all white people are racists, January 6 was an "insurrection", communists are trying to take over the U.S., black people can't leave the house without getting murdered by police, terrorists are behind every Bush (pun intended), Ivermectin is a "horse dewormer" no sane person takes, and 2+2 = 55 if your employer tells you it does and you want your job. History shows humanity has always lived there, in part, and in the worst times in history, in full.
God help any society who thinks cartoon reality is a good place to live.
Usually when the cartoons come to life it's like something out of the Bible, and the Old Testament not the new one, when God was an angry God and he laid waste to entire cultures who worshipped graven images.
"God help any society who thinks cartoon reality is a good place to live."
I would like to carve out an exception for Jessica Rabbit.
"I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."
With the imagery of Jungian shadow projections, I couldn't help but think of Plato's Allegory of the Cave mixed in with Old Testament lore. The coffee is kicking in.
Abraham lifting the knife into the air breathlessly waiting for God to give him a sign. Is that a ram in the thicket? No. Oh well. God demands a sacrifice. The messiah will get here eventually but for now, Abraham's sacrifice of his only son will have to be enough.
And naturally, the dissidents will remain in the city of sin. Sodom but with unfettered speech. The place got a bad rap. I blame the PR. Poor corporate sponsorship. The path to our collective enlightenment will be littered with pillars of salt. A stark reminder to everyone that our new gods are jealous gods.
We are being pushed further and further back into the cave. Shadow puppets on the wall. Is this the Today Show or CNN? No, this is a Progressive commercial. No! It's Pizza Hut or maybe it is AT&T. What is Brian Stelter doing in a commercial along with Al Roker?
The saddest thing is the demonizing of Donald Trump and all his supporters. Instead of 4 years of Russian Collusion, and impeachment and Schiff, there could have been debate on the real issues facing this country. Trump Derangement Syndrome was and is still real. And I think disgraceful. Its always been an excuse for covering up business as usual by the Congress.
I was initially terrified of Trump being President, and voted for Jill Stein in 2016. But I listened to
what he said, and there were some good things, but when the entire Congress is against you,
even your own party, its pretty hard to stay on course. Its time for the disaffected to get together, from all different philosophies, but those who really care about this country, and organize state by state, my suggestion is get rid of Winner Take All, (Nebraska and Maine do it) and build local organizations, thats the only way and its not going to be easy to change the
dismal road our country seems to be going down. Truthfully everytime someone focuses on dissing Trump, I'm turned off of whatever else they may have to say. So Sue me Sue me shoot bullets through me"!!!!!!!!forgot what musical thats from.
I've tailed Donald Trump for more than 35 years. I was probably one of the first few hundred people in Manhattan (and thus the world) who read Graydon Carter's unparalleled summation of Trump ---"short-fingered vulgarian"--- in Spy Magazine in the late 80s.
As well as being a short-fingered vulgarian, and regardless of what you think of him as a politician or statesman, Trump is also unquestionably a horse's ass, has always been a horse's ass, and will always be a horse's ass. I also believe he became an unfortunate distraction from more serious and pressing problems requiring the full attention and focus of a good many Americans, citizens and leaders alike.
But: Runyonland Music/Fugue for Tinhorns/Follow the Fold---Stubby Kaye · Johnny Silver · Douglas Deane.
From the original 1955 stage production of Guys and Dolls.
Think about the profound level of intellectual dishonesty, and/or profound lack of self-awareness, currently projected by the Trump-hating Biden-loving elite political media chattering class as we...
- Have millions of COVID-infected illegal immigrants streaming across the southern border and being shipped to red states after Trump had effectively stopped the caravans.
- Have run-away inflation due to Democrat COVID "relief" spending in excess of what was required.
- Have supply chain breakdowns and empty shelves.
- Have COVID infection rates, case rates and death exceeding that during Trump's term after being assured by Biden that he would end the pandemic.
- Have run-away crime in all the major big cities that Democrats control.
- Have small businesses being destroyed from draconian shutdowns and then lack of employees because of the Democrats paying people not to work... and then hear about the Democrat's plans to raise taxes on those same small business owners. Meanwhile watching the Democrat's meg-corporate campaign donors have their best years ever.
- Have our major allies disgusted with our disastrous Biden pullout of Afghanistan.
- See China launching hypersonic nuclear capable missiles while Biden appoints transgender 4-star Admirals.
With all this and more, we get to read that the real threat to the nation is the "cult of Trump" and the people supporting him are just too ignorant to see the truth.
No, just like this Meltdown book... the explanation for Trump is that the Democrats suck pond water more than the Republicans suck pond water. They have since Bill Clinton blew his bad sax on late night and Monica blew his bad sax late at night. Trump is a symptom of the American voting public seeing the pond water sucking and knowing that the country needs someone to clean it up.
There is reporting that the Mayor of Chicago is proposing $500 guaranteed monthly (I think) income to 5,000 families, to be paid out of COVID relief funds that were voted on that last time around. Now, one may think guaranteed minimum income is a good or bad thing, but the Covid funds were sold as necessary because of the special circumstances of the pandemic. That big stash of Covid dough really was for the next election, wasn't it?
This idea is so stupid/unbelievable, I thought it has to be "fake news." If it is not, do people who work hard and pay their bills and taxes need anymore information on what the Democratic Party thinks of you?
Many years ago my Congressman was having one of those meet/greet things at a tiny town near us. It was at a time when a "Comprehensive Immigration Bill" was up for debate; Obama may still have been our US Senator. Anyway, I told my guy I was ashamed that our government was encouraging a criminal enterprise, human trafficking. Here we are, YEARS later, and it is human trafficking on steroids. So despicable.
When that bill came out, the CBO put out a report analyzing the effects. It would have lowered hourly wages for American workers by like 25 cents, and would have reduced illegal immigration by only like 25%. Other issues - like fees waived, health insurance, housing, etc. And nobody cared. Wages for Americans especially shouldn't be lowered - they were already flatlined enough.
I genuinely have no clue what they're thinking on that one. They basically just handed the midterms over to Republicans. Anybody have a genuine guess as to what the logic and strategy is of that? Because i'm totally blank.
It has to do with the Trump admin separating illegal migrant children from their parents at the border. Attorneys (of course) sued the government and Biden is considering paying them. It'll be a cool million if the family has two children. Every single American needs to know that this even under consideration! Absolutely absurd!
I know what it's for, but wtf with that number. A bunch of reasonable tweets from Republicans along the lines of "the Biden administration gave Americans $1300 but want to give illegal immigrants $450,000".
I do not know any Biden-loving people - in fact I think most are either Meh (better than the last guy, wash their hands of it) or i always vote Team Dem because of so&so issue. There cannot be very many people who say to themselves --- " I love Joe Biden " - he evokes the feeling of slightly better than a turd in the punch bowl.
Lets avoid love-hate, good-bad, left-right binaries -- they are too simplistic as to convey real underlining meaning. Intellectual dishonesty needs to be sorted out by all of us (not just those who live over there).
The transgender woman appointed as admiral is in the public health service. I don't think she has the authority to counter Chinese missle strikes. But hey, make all the non sequitur connections you want if it helps you get into the frothy rage you've become addicted to.
I'm always dumbfounded when I meet people that believe the major parties have interests other than furthering their own power. Similarly, I can't understand people that don't recognize that the majority of politicians operate purely for their own self interest. The Congress is bought off and has been for a long time. What progress do people observe in solving our nation's problems to make them think otherwise?
I can't remember where I heard this, but people can't seem to see beyond their own noses. IOW what people see is only that which directly, substantially relates to their own lives. It is a reflection of this dissonance that we practice a civic religion called celebrity worship and that includes political support - we are voting for our 'favorite' celebrity politician, usually. These politicians, and their parties, are like actors and movie sets -- we all know how fake Hollywood is, but we still buy the ticket. Cuz if that's all there is, well ...you know the song.
What annoyed me most when all that was going down was that a few people WERE asking those questions, but the pols, including Obama, would give these sly hints that they didn't like it either but there was nothing they could do without wrecking the economy further. It was like they possessed some specialized, Insider knowledge from Experts that the rest of us couldn't understand or they couldn't tell us. It was obvious Dodge Ball from the jump and the more they did it, the more patronizing, no paternalizing, it sounded. At that point is was obvious, the fix was in.
the greatest comedy of this all.. are the suckers' that childishly label obummer a socialist. rofl.
his entire admin was deeply neoliberal. aka libertarian.
the us is a galt's gulch, libertarian shithole, after decades of Buchanan, Freidman, Chicago school bs, all derivatives of Hayek's pimping lies about the dominion of the inbreds born into perverse wealth.
"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed." - Adam Smith The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter VI
Neoliberalism did this.
#HostLife the people are "hosts" (food - rent slaves) for the inbred 1% parasites (leeches - rent collectors)
With a great deal of noise and made-4-tv passion, the neoliberal puppets pimped their "freedom" and "liberty" message, to the gathered "hosts" (food for the inbred parasites), and all the Opus Dei sheep, clapped excitedly for their own slaughter~
Free Market:
To the classical economists, an economy free of land rent, usurious banking practices and monopolies in private hands. But as finance capitalism has superseded industrial capitalism, it has inverted “free market” rhetoric to mean a market free FOR rent extractors to obtain land rent, natural resource rent, monopoly rent and financial gains “free” of government taxation or regulation. This INVERTED re-definition depicts a free market as one free for the financial and propertied classes to subject the economy to a network of extractive tollbooth fees. Such a “free market” has become a doublethink term for the path to neo-feudalism, financialization and kindred rentier policies. (See Free Lunch, Kleptocrats and Road to Serfdom.)
Hudson, Michael. J IS FOR JUNK ECONOMICS: A Guide To Reality In An Age Of Deception
The RNC and DNC, like the corporate state media, are force multipliers for global generational wealth and power.
The Mont Pelerin Society's (Austria 1940's) favorite "economist" F. v Hayek proposed path of "liberty" and "freedom", 4 "planks": [only for the 1% (Neoliberalism)] (Buchanan, Friedman, the "Chicago School", were later disciples and advocates)
1) Deregulate global financial markets - DONE
2) Deregulate global trade - DONE
3) Create the illusion and urgency of national bankruptcy with fake (fiat) debt (thereby neuter a nation's capability to enforce laws - eliminate the people's ability to defend against being overwhelmed and consumed by the 1%) - DONE
this manufactured illusion of bankruptcy is critical path for the 1%'s agenda. the "debt" is used to justify austerity measures for the people, and to tee up, the privatization plan, which is about transforming the public debt, into private debt, where the 1% can extract usury, ad infinitum.
#AusterityIsCode4Looting - austerity measures are plain evidence, the system has already been looted by generational globalist wealth.
then lastly, the kill shot:
4) Privatize Everything. recreate us ALL as permanent rent payers of even the most basic necessities of life (Air, water, food, shelter, health care). the public debt of a nation has been effectively eliminated, transmuted into private debt (bonds); the service of which (usury) is FOREVER- Almost COMPLETE
#PrivatizationIsTheft - privatization today is STRICTLY about prioritizing national productivity (work) away from the commons and general welfare, extracting and transferring it to the 1% rent-seeking parasites (Extreme Redistribution of wealth from the people TO the Billionaires, NOTHING for the people)
the use of "liberal" in this context, describes the "liberal" (freely used, as one would "liberally" spread butter on toast) projection of any and all force available to maintain, enhance, and grow, a condition of monopolized wealth and power, in the hands of a small group of generational feudal lords.
"his entire admin was deeply neoliberal. aka libertarian."
Disagree, because neoliberal and libertarian are not the same thing at all. I'll give you neoliberal. But the Obama administration was in no way libertarian, in fact i voted for the Libertarian candidate in '12 because the Obama administration increased the power of the government in so many ways. From surveillance of private citizens to Terror Tuesdays to banning news organizations and photographers from press conferences, and to bailing out banks. These are not libertarian principles.
Full disclosure - I'm not a Libertarian, I'm independent and Bernie is my guy.
disagree. read what neoliberalism is, and you will see, it IS libertarianism. Its john galt. it's dominionism. the belief that people born into perverse wealth, are granted by gawd, the right to own us all as cattle, do what they please. privatize every last thing. the every fact they were inheritance winners, means, natural control should be given to them. one has to look past the slogan and freedumb nonsense. sure libertarians want to stop endless wars, end the drug wars.. but they believe we can somehow trust in benevolence of a few that inevitably exercise a monopoly of force. its patently absurd.
What's absurd is that you believe the monopoly of force is exercised by those outside the govt. Libertarians have lots of impractical ideas (particularly if you run into the anarcho- branch), but they don't believe in the benevolent use of force.
The government exercises its monopoly of force to advance the interests of a small group of powerful people who exist outside of government, but have enormous influence on the people who are inside the government. It's a distinction without a difference.
neoliberals, libertarians, all support the increase of government, despite their flowery bs to the contrary. they want a militarized force, to protect the common land they stole, from the people they stole it from. these are the facts on the ground, the history, not the empty thesis and prose.
Ah. A socialist who thinks we get rid of that nasty freedom and some utopia will roll in. No. What’ll you get is a new class of overlords. See history.
Why pivot to assumptions revolving around socialism after reading this kind of assessment? Who is advocating that "we get rid of that nasty freedom?" Whatever the hell that means.
But things are so much better in Venezuela now! No has to decide what kind of cereal to buy! There isn't any! And Sean Penn really, really likes it there.
There are so many reasons and ways to say: "America is circling the drain, we are completely fucked" -- and then you look at the sold out arenas and stadiums for basketball and football games and it looks completely normal and sane; the national anthem is playing, people have their hands over their hearts. It's the very definition of cognitive dissonance...
We all live in our own bubbles, intersecting with some, isolated from others. America is as deep or shallow, wide or narrow depending on our perception and experience. However that doesn’t change the fact that things are not going well.
This type of article sure is interesting. I’m remind of events from more than 12 years ago and I’m also reminded how thick people are. It’s hard to know how to interpret the thought processes of people like Matt and this David guy, but I eventually conclude they say what they say, in the way they say it, so as to justify their work.
Consider this description of Trump, “ …a foul-mouthed game show host“‘. Ok, that works for the moment, but where’s the comment of “… a foul-mouthed former, 6 term US Senator from Delaware”? Do Matt &/or David think Trump is unique in foul-mouthness?
Throughout this article one might conclude the author(s) really were surprised by the behavior of the political class. That might explain a lot, if sharp people like Matt are deceived by politician’s promises, it’s no wonder the diverse dolts in the MSM are so easily duped into being Satan’s mouthpieces.
There was one funny line tho, “In a crisis, a leader in full control of the government has to act decisively, …”. As a 64 y/o geezer I can say without a lot of fear of contradiction, I don’t think, in my lifetime, we have ever had such a leader.
Lyndon Johnson could have fit that description (Civil Rights and War on Poverty), but he went wrong on Vietnam. Foreign policy as not his strong suit and the military industrial complex/CIA and Cold War liberals played him.
Being decisive often pisses some people off. The trick is to piss off the right people. On Civil Rights, the south was wrong and pissing them off was the right and necessary thing to do. You may not agree, but I think Johnson did the right thing even if too many people are still pissed off and still trying to keep Black people from voting.
I’m not arguing the merits, just that it doesn’t strike me as decisive. Civil Rights was well on its way; war on poverty was a political maneuver, much like Biden wanting to buy off illegal aliens with their proposed “compensation”. Divisive, not decisive.
If you think the Civil Rights bill could have been passed by anyone but Lyndon Johnson, I think you need to read some history. He made the decision despite knowing his party would lose the South because he knew it was in the long-term interest of the country and was the right thing to do. He was the right person in the right place at the right time and he knew that and acted on that knowledge. Name another president since Johnson who has done that. The rap against Obama is that he could have done something like that - he had a mandate - but he didn't, for whatever reason.
I don’t disagree, even as VP & President, LBJ still had the Senate twisted around his finger. Remember, proportionally the Republicans were the majority supporters of the act. Al Gore Sr, a leading Democrat voted against it along with others.
As for it’s affect on the Democrat’s grip on southern states, while it pushed some whites to the Republican Party, it was what moved 99% of all blacks into the Democrat Party plantation, where most still reside. LBJ was corrupt, but he wasn’t stupid.
FDR was one of the monied elite, and was supposed to operate less as a populist, but what the business class (who once tried to have him killed - see the Business Plot involving General Smedly Butler) did not account for was how much polio affected him and his world view. He believed that people ought to have a home, a decent job and a warm meal (safety or protection from the exploitation of capital).
And the business community is in the US is the one brought in Truman to supplant Henry Wallace, funded Hitler's rise after WW1 and even secretly during WWII, and was incensed at the New Deal policies (they learned from this and learned how to destroy these policies from within (government is the problem Neoliberal Reaganism) and from the outside (thinktanks like the Heritage Foundation, National Association of Manufacturers, and the Chamber of Commerce - along with the Mont Pelerin Society).
This business class (most white) used LBJ's Civil Rights Act to merge coalitions of white southern racists, religious institutions, and small town business men into a generational voting block that in large parts makes up the past John Birch Society - still afraid of communism with the newer Trump voters who want to see the whole thing go up in flames rather the vote for lying snakes in the Democratic Party.
So, FDR is correct but more a product a different time, and a much different opponent (as the financial crashes of 20's & 30's - gave executive authority and government an opportunity that does not exist in 2021). However, to Matt's point - it did exist in 2008-09 - which explains a lot about Obama.
Matt, you're both overthinking something that is very simple. The reason Trump won in 2016 was because he was running against one of the most corrupt candidates in US history. There's good reason Arkansas voted some 25% against their former governor's wife. Obama won in 2008 because the economy collapsed and was reelected because the GOP ran Mitt Romney, a lackluster candidate at best. Journalists and political pundits make big deals out of "issues" the general public is barely aware of.
I am always surprised by people who interpret incredibly modest changes in electoral results as compelling evidence of what Americans want. It is worth considering that there has been only one landslide presidential victory in my adult lifetime - Reagan in '84. The actual vote totals don't strongly suggest any clear movement of the population since the country unequivocally decided in 1984 that European-style social democracy is bad policy.
I'm not of these people that believe in the uniparty. There are meaningful differences in the type of government we would have if presidents from different political factions achieved enduring political power. But imagining that 1.5% vote swings from election to election means that Americans have endorsed this or that thing seems like a mistake.
Yes, but the real problem is that the actual two major parties have been effectively united for years in being against important issues that are strongly supported by a large majority of voters, such as lowering prescription drug prices, universal and affordable health care, tuition-free higher education, a significantly higher minimum wage, paid family leave, affordable child care, higher taxes for the wealthy, limiting the influence of big money in political campaigns and doing more to deal with climate change. There is a lot of media theater around social issues, but nothing ever gets done because the big donors and corporate lobbies that fund both parties effectively veto the majority of citizens who repeatedly support needed change on these issues. These issues never come up for a clear and honest vote and that's not an accident. It's called oligarchy, not democracy.
Nothing ever gets done because these are not simple problems with clear solutions. Let's take "lowering prescription drug prices" as an example. We all know how to do it - arbitrarily setting medicare reimbursement rates at lower prices. This is exactly what European and Canadian health authorities do. The problem is that not everyone can be a free rider. Europe and Canada can get away with this solely because the U.S. marketplace exists and virtually all new drugs are developed with an assumption of generating returns from that less price-regulated U.S. market.
As long as European countries set reimbursement rates well above the marginal cost of the drug's production, it'll still make sense for the pharmaceutical company to sell at those rates. But they are absolutely free-riding on the U.S. market, which generates the profits necessary to actually develop the drug. This is not a secret. Everyone knows this. Every 3 or 4 years some politician starts talking about letting drug distributors re-import US drugs from European and Canadian markets and everyone points out that the actual end result of that will not be lower prices in the U.S. but a cessation of sales of the drug at all to Europe and Canada. Now, some people (Trump among them) thought we should do that anyway just to prove the very point I'm making. But understand there is no magical way to reduce drugs costs except to be a resident of a free-rider country. And we can't all be.
Some truth there, but after we realize that Cali and NY were far different places back in '84, and by "different places" I mean not so staunchly Dem, Trump really did destroy. A landslide, one might say:
Trump got 2MM more votes than Romney (in a year when turnout was slightly higher and voting age eligible population was also slightly higher). In a nation of 250MM+ voting eligible people, that's a really small difference with probably a range of factors all of which are themselves even smaller.
What if there are 100,000 anti-Mormons in America. 100,000 people that blame private equity for their unemployment? 100,000 black people that voted for Obama because he was black but really couldn't care less between Dems or GOP. 100,000 people that think undocumented Central American migration lowered their property values or employment opportunities. 100,000 people that just loved Trump's reality TV shows. 100,000 people that are still offended by Hillary Clinton mocking them for baking cookies for their children. I mean, some of these things are probably true and some of them aren't and they are probably all dwarfed by the number of people that just think Hillary is a crooked liar. My point though is that from election to election, the actual vote changes are super modest and given the large number of evolving factors and explanations, American political preferences have been remarkably stable and immune to changes in the actual candidates. I reiterate my position that the only fundamental change in 40+ years is the Reagan/Thatcher realignment.
Sure but we're not talking about 100k votes here, we're talking about 6M. If Cali and NY weren't so politically polluted, Trump would have owned the popular vote too, and by a lot.
I mean, it's why we shouldn't expect GOP winning the popular vote again in our lifetime. Lucky for us, it may be a disadvantage but it also doesn't matter all that much.
Nah, the fat dude from Flint was right. We (I) wanted Trump to burn the whole fucking thing down. And he did. We are now more aware then we were before how corrupt it all is.
Matt, I get why you have to put in the obligatory digs at DJT, but don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the guy is as sincere as you and hates corruption as much?
I grew up with DJT, in the sense that he's always been in the media since I became aware of such things (mid-70's). "Sincere" is not any character trait I would have applied to the DJT I've known for 50 years.
Judge the vine by the fruit. This isn't about aesthetics but actions. Why did Trump take on Boeing? Big Pharma? Why didn't he strike the Iranian missile bases -- as was the strong desire by the Military-Industrialists -- after their attack on the Saudi oil refinery? Why did he pull out of Syria -- or try to anyway -- again despite strong opposition from the MIC & Beltway pundits?
Why did he replace NAFTA with something we can live with? Why did Big Tech hate him? You think Jeff Bezos & Mark Zuckerberg care about you? Why did the FBI & CIA hate him? Having the right enemies counts for much credit.
Con man? Seriously? He didn't con me. I liked cheap gas. What is your problem with oil independence, anyway.
Like new trade deals that are better for companies he's invested in? Yep.
The man only does something if it benefits him. Nothing weird about that, that's who Trump is, M(B)illionaire Playboy, and no worse than any other of that Class. But he really buffaloed the lot of you with that "I'm just like you and I want to help you" shtick. At least with Obama you thought it might, could, be true. With Trump, there was no effing way.
I only did because we didn't know him yet. Based on passed pol performance, no one should've expected it from him either, but for the briefest of moments I had Hope that things would Change. More fool me.
I get it. Somewhere in my subconscious, I was probably thinking the same, but at the surface I was skeptical and cynical; I’m from Chicago, I know how it works. His “resume” was/is a pile of superfluities. He works the game just like all the other assholes.
But, he does and he doesn't. Where's the infrastructure legislation he promised that would be "the best"? Where's the health care policy that was going to be "so much better"? They had control of government, just like the Dems, and what we got was tax breaks and giveaways. He didn't even start doing what he said he was going to do, except to give him and his supporters cover and money. They're the same filth, playing to the same audience, with different play sheets.
That's also what the sheep say about the wolfpack that's about to devour them. "They do what they say they're going to do." The wolves make no bones about what they're going to do.
For someone who posts a lot, you do not seem to have much information - something you might try is to read more, identify a few points, and identify someone who wants to engage you. I would have been less rude, but it looks like you are word vomiting all over this thread.
I voted for Obama ONCE - then I saw he was a fake. I voted for Bernie ONCE until he bowed down and capitulated. Of course, comparing that list to Trump is like comparing Al Capone to the local drug dealer.
LOL. It's certainly something I appreciated. You seriously don't see a direct connection between government policy and the price of oil (energy) in general?
This is such a cheap trick argument that it hardly merits a response. Just so others will know to what I am referring, you blithely conflate "standing president" with "government policy" as if they were are the same thing. Oh so clever, aren´t you. BTW - the price of oil is a COMPLICATED THING that NOBODY has a handle on, not even the mighty USA! (see: the 1970s!)
---He hates all the corruption that he's not in on.--
That claim does not make a bit of sense. How is he richer/better off after presidency than before? He's objectively not as rich and his old crowd shuns him and his family, now.
The ones who like are not those whom the setters of fashion favor.
You are right, though, that Trump is far from perfect and he screwed up. The irony though is his screw-ups come from his apparent trust in the myth i.e. FBI are good guys; military leadership are good guys; federal health authorities best in the world.
He even seemed to think the major media would do what's right if it can down to it.
Compare a Trump press conference with a Biden one.
The comment makes complete sense. He's a lying horrible business person who stayed afloat through financial shenanigans that ultimately got bailed out by his run as a successful TV huckster. The problem being POTUS, for DJT, is he didn't control all the levers that he's used to controlling. He was a con that found the ultimate mark, but didn't understand there were other players with more leverage. He was in way over his head, and didn't see it. Also, Washington is not real estate, which is riddled with laws that provide cover for sleaze.
Respect Trump for what he did is all I'm asking. Well, and to judge him by the same standards as is done for the rest of our political class. When you do that, he actually looks pretty good.
When Obama supported TARP (along with McCain) in 2008, that’s when he confirmed himself to be a swamp creature. Prior to that I still had “hope” for him. But not after that moment.
I think it was my frustration with the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld BS Iraq war WMDs etc and I was still young then and thinking there actually could be a candidate come I g from a major political party who wasn’t a swamp creature (front for corporate interests). Yes in hind site I was horribly naive.
THIS!!! This right here is the perennial American viewpoint. The insiders versus the outsiders, Gurri's Border versus the Center.
We love Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. It is always the outsider that can whip those nasty insiders into doing what's right. It used to be that he would shame them with his civic virtue, then we got the Trumpian bluster of put-downs. One day we're going to give up on the peaceful means and demand a Great Leader who actually cracks heads and spills blood to sate our own immaturity and stupidity.
" To this day, the all-but-mandatory explanation for the Democrats’ 2016 disaster is a combination of racist reaction and Russian interference. Though race certainly played a significant role..."
I know that race is always the Left's go-to answer for anything it doesn't like, but this is just getting silly. The mistake that the Left constantly and continuously makes is that they feel that everyone else already regards racial issues the same way they do, and this is just not the case. And, frankly, it is what is sinking them. In whole or in part, doesn't matter, the fact that not every person sees things this way, and reacts to events differently as they see things through a different lens should have occurred to the Left and Dems by this point, but, sadly, it hasn't.
I suggest a moratorium on using the term unless you can point to a specific action, done by a specific person or persons, to a specific person or persons, due to the perceived color of their skin and no other possible reason. I know, I know, it's a high bar, but the left and all its acolytes need something like this, if for no other reason than it will make them much better thinkers, but also so it won't be a constant thing they look for/makeup, which lessens the impact of real racism.
I agree with Sirota...but what he doesn't say is...."I will vote out the corporate congressional Democrats, even if that means electing Republicans." That's the ONLY message that will change the current Wall Street rigged congressional system.
"The reason you cannot vote your way out under the current system is that there’s a two party system in the United States, and it’s basically the same party with a little ethnic difference between them, but economically it’s the same party and there cannot be any alternative to this monolithic – we’ll call it the Republican Party with Democratic cheerleaders – there cannot be any progress made until you break up the Democratic Party.
"That became apparent not only when they cheated Bernie Sanders out of the nomination four years ago, but this time, when Obama came up and stacked the deck and did everything he could to organize a stab in the back against Sanders. And Bernie Sanders showed himself to be a social democrat. And he said, “Well, I’d rather help my own career by helping the Democratic Party. It’s a gang, but I’d rather be a gang member than take on the gang.”
"And so he’s dropped all of his support for public healthcare. He’s dropped all the social views and he’s joined the Democratic gang. What I would have liked to have seen him do, would be to say, “I will not support the Democratic nominee. I realize that it is awful to have to elect a Republican again, especially a Republican like Donald Trump, but no progress can be made until we remove the current Democratic Party leadership and take it over and make it a labor party. And we cannot do that until they realize that they will lose every single election until they give up and join the rest of the Republican Party.”
Your unstated premise is that the means exist for a "Labor Party" of social democrats to replace the entrenched control of the current Democratic Party Establishment status quo at the national level. That's a pipe dream.
It may be possible for such a movement to obtain some limited success at the level of local/municipal/State government; occasionally it happens, the same way that Libertarians occasionally win races at that level. But no one, not even the most charismatic and photogenic candidate(s) with the best assurance of media exposure (we all know the one(s) I'm talking about) is going to mount a takeover of the top ranking hierarchy of the national Democratic Party from the inside.
No, Bernie was simply being realistic. He was shut down by the Democratic Party establishment. And now he has acceded to the reality that like so many of the rest of us, he's been cornered into supporting the choice between the Dems and the GOP, based on his assessment of the least worst option.
It wasn't about "guts" for DJT. He had the pre-existing name recognition- not gained as an elected official or government functionary, which is a plus in the current political climate- and the side money for seed capital to mount a campaign. As Taibbi has repeatedly pointed out, Trump obtained more media time from the Dem-leaning media outlets for free than any of his opponents were able to buy! And the template for him to run as an Iconoclastic Outsider was readily available to him; there was- and is- so much free-floating dissatisfaction with the entrenched political class in the public mood that his cheesy demagoguery is an easy sell. Trump is like a convenient vessel into which people can register their discontents, and their fears and hopes. One of his talents is that he can get people to see whatever they want in him. Like you, imagining that DJT is courageous. Trump isn't courageous- he's merely secure in the knowledge that even if he bluffs and loses, so what? He went into the game with a personal fortune of fuck-you money, and knows he will still have that no matter what happens.
Trump is the guy who shows up in Plato’s Republic when democracy goes batshit crazy. Neither of the ruling factions has any remaining public trust or integrity, and Trump shows up to mine the resentment at their expense. He’s not going to fix anything, just break things.
That may be the case; I'm not sure whether Sirota thinks that the most viable option for a national "left-liberal, social democracy, working people's party" movement is to mount a viable challenge to the Democratic Party Establishment from the inside.
Based on an assessment of all of the facts of which I'm presently aware, I don't think that's possible. For anyone who doesn't make it past whatever protege or pre-screening process is functionally in place to winnow out challengers to the institutional Democratic Party Establishment, not just "the Squad" and the "progressive wing." Consider the fate of all of the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 who have been not only sidelined like Bernie Sanders- they've been disappeared. No new ideas allowed; no different agenda of political priorities permitted to gain traction.
In my opinion, the most instructive example isn't Bernie Sanders; it's John Delaney of Maryland, a former Democratic Party Congressman (District 6, 2013-2018.) Multimillionaire businessman, businesses that he founded rather than inherited. Roman Catholic church attender ("pro-choice", like Biden.) Finance capitalist, even! Here's his biography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Delaney_(Maryland_politician)
With that CV, you'd think Delaney would be a great fit for an up-and-coming leadership role in the "centrist, mainstream" Democratic Party Establishment. Except that many of Delaney's positions- while significantly less sweepingly ambitious and ideologically driven than Sanders- are still evidently much too "radical" to gain any traction with the Democratic Party
Compare Delaney's platform and tax proposals with the Biden "infrastructure"/"climate change"/"human investment" policy- and the Biden administration's "plan" to pay for it, and you'll encounter the difference between an ambitious but practical agenda of ordered priorities vs. an incoherent mess of dangling loose ends, including what appear to me to be ample openings for patronage pork barrels.
Taxes: "To address the national debt, Delaney has proposed several tax-related measures. This includes creating more revenues by closing certain corporate tax loopholes and imposing a "Buffett style" rule on individuals making over $1 million in annual income. It also includes raising the cap on Social Security taxes.[115] Delaney champions a form of the "Buffet rule" should be implemented that incorporates aligning capital gains tax rates with ordinary income tax rates. He argues that a lower capital gains tax is unneeded, an outdated incentive that contributes significantly to structural unfairness in the United States tax code by allowing investors to pay lower rates than workers.[55] However, Delaney advocates for instituting a higher capital gains tax rate for short-term investing, accompanied by very low rates for investors who hold their investments for ten years or more.[6] He believes that these measures would both benefit investment in startups and infrastructure.[6]
To also address the national debt, Delaney proposes rolling back tax cuts Republicans have given to high earners[55] and raising the corporate tax rate to approximately 27%.[55]..."
The Biden administration started out with proposals similar to those of some of Delaney's ideas- proposing a top marginal rate on capital gains that's equivalent to the top tax rate on earned income: 39%. But look what the Democrats of the House did with it, last month: "House Democrats proposed a top 25% federal tax rate on capital gains and dividends. It would apply to single taxpayers with over $400,000 of income and married couples with over $450,000..." https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/15/house-capital-gains-tax-better-for-the-super-rich-than-biden-plan.html
Delaney's proposals on climate change and energy policy:
"In his campaign for president he proposed a $4 trillion climate plan,[60][61] which he declared would be focused on bringing the United States to net-zero emissions by 2025. Delaney's climate plan focuses on a carbon cap and dividend program.[60][62] The six tenants of his plan are a carbon fee and dividend, direct air capture/negative emissions technology, quintupling the budget for renewable energy research, challenge grants, a "Climate Corps", a "Carbon Throughway".[61][62]"
That means a carbon tax with dividend rebate for low-income earners. The Democratic Party Establishment wants nothing to do with that.
Delaney wanted a well-funded but voluntary National Service program linked with college scholarships, and controls on student loan provisions. He does not support lofty (and empty) rhetorical promises of "free college education for all." Consequentially, his ideas aren't even on the table.
And that's what I'm talking about- the platform espoused by Delaney, not the personalist politics of Fearless Leader John Delaney, Hero Of The People.
It isn't just that the Democratic Party Establishment didn't want John Delaney as President; they don't even want to provide a forum for most of the policy proposals in his platform, much less actually enacting them. Although it is worth noting that unlike ideologically predictable Bernie Sanders, John Delaney can't be caricatured as a "socialist." And the programs on Delaney's platform aren't reliant on sweepingly ambitious abstractions supported only by self-indulgent rhetoric; they're well-reasoned and well-scaled, and there's an outline of priorities and how to pay for them. How much influence does John Delaney have in today's Democratic Party? Zilch. How much name recognition has the national news media provided to Delaney? Nada. How much time does the news media spend on discussions of issues of substance rather than symbolism, and on policies rather than personalities? Negligible.
So corporate congressional republicans are somehow better than corporate congressional democrats? The double-fudge brownies are tastier at the republican bake sales?
no, the only message that's going to change the rigged Congressional system is to change the currently rigged ballot system to enable ranked-choice voting. Otherwise, the balance of power between "BOTH kinds of politics!"- the Dems and the GOP- just goes back and forth, like deck chairs sliding around on the Titanic.
But, Bill E., since you're obviously in the business of sticking angel halos on the Republicans ("Teh Party uv Freedom!") and devil horns on the "Wall Street rigged" Democrats, I doubt you'd offer a sincere endorsement of that reform.
I think that it's sufficient that the ranking is limited to a first and second choice- the candidate the individual voter actually thinks is best, and the one they'll settle for. But ranked-choice voting has to be enacted- preferably in every state, if it isn't possible to make that reform with Federal legislation- in order to provide voters with the power to (at minimum) send a message to the entrenched status quo parties that either or both of them could be replaced.
The means for an independent candidate to achieve and build media exposure and fund a campaign with grassroots support already exist, via the Internet (not that success would be effortless); the intractable obstacle is the inability of voters to make any preference known other than by being backed into a corner of one single vote choice- "supporting" the one single candidate they find to be the least worst. It's the difference between "outsider party candidacy" as pipe dream vs. building the leverage for authentic political power. The System doesn't care about your magical thinking symbolism in the voting booth; it cares about outcomes, long-term visibility, popular momentum. There's no way for outsider popular movements to find a way in and stay in without a ranked-choice ballot.
No, ranked-choice is probably the worst thing in elections. In fact, it is what gave SF Chesa Boudin. No one wanted him, he didn't do well in any debate, but people scrawled in his name as a "whatever, I need someone else on the ballet".
No, two competing ideologies need to compete and debate the actual issues, not have either be mollycoddled by the media, and any connections to special interests need to be disclosed and vetted, as everyone has a connection.
You could say the same about term limits. Term limits even have a superficial appeal - the idea that we can eradicate politics as a career.
The problem with a democratic system, of any flavor, is you end up with a ruling faction and an opposition one. You can break up either of those into sub-factions with their own labels, but you can't change that one group has power and one does not. Nor can you change the populace which tends to be fickle when it has a choice. RCV just doesn't do anything to change that.
Tell me more about the Golden Age of Municipal Politics that existed before ranked-choice voting came along to ruin everything..
The ranked-choice ballot reform has been in place for how long in Oakland, compared with the previous system? Ten whole years, according to my DDG search...
I don't attempt to say anything about what you derogatorily call the "golden age". What I will say is that both Quan and Schaff were less than stellar managers of their civic duties. The ranked system was designed in part to stop runoffs and causing expense. In my mind (and apparently not yours, and you're entitled to your opinion just as I am mine) this was a cure whose result has been less than satisfying.
"two competing ideologies need to compete and debate the actual issues"
I don't think debating "actual issues" is to be reduced to some contest between "two competing ideologies"- only two? That's a false choice. I don't think ideology should arbitrate anything, much less ideological loyalty. Ideologies are templates, meant to work as analytical tools. Rigid fealty to a single ideology often means that none of the loyalists can even lay a glove on an "actual issue."
No, it's not a false choice. There have only ever been two ideologies; Progressives and Reactionaries. Everything else is just icing on the cake, minutia if you will.
Let’s talk about welfare; what is the best way to go about it? Means tested welfare as we have now? UBI? Minimum wage increase? Pro-union policy? The state commands the means of production? The corporations are converted to cooperatives? Debt forgiveness? Job guarantee program? Some combination of the above?
Let’s say we go with a UBI, what’s the right way to fund it? Negative income tax? The Yang plan? Land value tax? Carbon tax? Wealth tax? Some combination of all of the above? Create money via the fed and direct deposit into all of our accounts?
Nothing is a simple two sided issue. Two parties cannot possibly represent the potential solution space of any given problem.
This discussion goes nowhere unless we're able to settle on a common definition of terms.
I at least have some vague framework for defining the term "Reactionary"; it's a movement that defines itself on the basis of its opposition to...(this is where the "vague" comes in) whatever it is that it doesn't like.
"Progressive", I don't know what the hell that means any more. Which is to say that I have more clarity than I had when I thought I knew what the term meant, only to find the dictionary definition of "progressive" used and abused in so many different ways and referent to so many different issues that as a rule I no longer even bother with employing the word, either in writing or speech.
I don't view either of those terms as descriptions of a specific ideology, for what that's worth.
I'm not all that fond of counterfactual arguments, but this is a case where I think it's fairly easy to make confident conjectures about previous Presidential elections:
if we had had ranked-choice for Presidential elections in 2000, Al Gore would have won the Presidency.
if we had had it in 1992, George H. W. Bush would have won the presidency.
if we had had it in 2016...I dunno.
But at least some dynamism would have been induced into the election process. And no one would be whining impotently about "spoilers", 20 years later.
(Got a chance to use the past perfect "had had" grammatical construction! I usually go out of my way to avoid it.)
If the citizenry doesn't care enough to take their local politics seriously, they deserve what they get.
That said: restricting the ranked choices to only two- a first and second ranking- obviates most of the complications and the worst untoward outcomes of a ranked-choice system. Allowing people to register their top two favored candidates is infinitely preferable to being cornered into picking one choice.
As Matt pointed out in the article, given the current ballot structure, all one party has to do is be perceived as a slight improvement over the other in order to provide the illusion that the winners result from "the will of the majority", as if every vote cast was an endorsement in their favor, rather than a desperate attempt to block a victory by a loathed opposition. That's the reality of the status quo ballot system. How can anyone view it as a success?
Hey, here's an idea - stop claiming to have a mandate or to be the will of the majority. Work in the legislative branch from the standpoint that you aren't in command, even if you are the majority. Hell, I'd sooner see us abolish omnibus legislation before we tinker with the voting system. Make all of those legislators actually work on legislation. Radical, huh?
It would really be nice if we stopped acting like a damn parliamentary system where the President is some kind of prime minister. He is supposed to execute the laws Congress passes, that's his job. This would be even more relevant if we broke the party duopoly as it stands.
"Work in the legislative branch from the standpoint that you aren't in command, even if you are the majority." That's a sweet thought. but it ignores the phenomenon of a partisan position demanding the authority to act as if they ARE in command, even though they're the minority.
As for your contention that the US tripartite structure and two-party system has somehow morphed into a quasi-parliamentary system, that's crazy talk. Power has increasingly concentrated in the office of the Chief Executive for decades. Although for what it's worth, a ranked-choice ballot inclines toward reining in political Balkanization as well as de facto voter disenfranchisement, by producing summed majority/minority electoral shifts without the requirement for playing coalition politics with horse-trading negotiations in the aftermath of elections. You don't seem to understand that it works that way.
I don't get how anyone wants to cling to the faux majoritarianism that results from the current status quo, particularly those who continually express their dissatisfaction with both the Republicans and the Democrats,and who complain about a "rigged system." I can only guess- maybe they just prefer having an excuse to bitch impotently? Or to bitch "productively", perhaps, with the tacit understanding that the status quo is undermining democratic ideals that they have no use for anyway. So maybe one day matters will get to the point where democracy is widely viewed as inherently broken and unusable, and a cynical and apathetic populace will offer their assent to a system more to the liking of those who constantly bemoan flaws of the democratic system and frame them as features rather than bugs, to suit their own private ends.
Well Mascot... FDR changed the Democratic Party from within by defeating Al Smith and John Jacob Raskob (former Dupont & GM executive running the Democratic Party)...not only at the 1932 Democratic Convention but in FDR's 1936 re-election campaign. So, it can be done. I've spent 40 years as a Democratic Party activist, elected Illinois state legislator, DNC delegate. We not doing away with Electoral College nor adopting rank choice voting nationwide. We live in a two-party system, and reforming one of those parties is MUCH easier and more practical than dreaming up some non-existent political system.
Don't discard getting rid of winner take all, which would get us closer to electing a president by popular vote, and not involve getting rid of the electoral college. Alot of people including legal scholars think WTA is unconstitutional. However, getting rid of it will take alot of bipartisan organizing, state by state. Just doing that might invigorate the lust for democracy in this country which we seem to have lost.
I see absolutely no real-world evidence for your claims- only evidence to contradict them.
I don't view the answer as a nostalgic quest to find the next FDR. The Democratic Party is unrecognizable by the standards of 1932-1944; that's a good thing in some ways, and bad in other ways. But in any case, the Democrats are not the same institution.
In point of fact, the Democrats are not the same party that they were in 1968, either. Read Kevin Phillips book The Politics of Rich and Poor; the America: What Went Wrong series by Barlett and Steele; Partners in Power, by Roger Morris and Sally Denton; Shadows of Hope, by Sam Smith...history from the last 40 years that will pop your epistemic bubble.
"We live in a two-party system, and reforming one of those parties is MUCH easier and more practical than dreaming up some non-existent political system."
Whoa, whoa, whoa...ranked-choice voting is not some wholesale revamping of the political system; it's a simple ballot reform. Some localities already have it. Maine now has it at the national level. And political leaders in both major parties have stated their support for it; as early on as the 2008 election, both Barack Obama and John McCain were on the record as supporting it, in addition to many other political leaders and well-regarded political and economic thinkers: https://archive3.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting/endorsers-of-ranked-choice-voting/
The summed result of ranked-choice voting is majoritarian rule- given the structural conditions of our Constitutional system, that's in both principle and practice much preferable to the outcome of some recent Presidential elections, which afforded a popular majority to neither candidate.
There's nothing about ranked-choice voting that inherently undermines the two-party system, either: I'd anticipate that the most likely result would be that faced with a challenge from outside political movements, the two established parties would respond by adopting some of their positions in order to lessen the appeal of such "insurgencies." And it would be fine with me if that happened, as long as the follow-through was real.
There are several different ways that ranked-choice voting might affect the system. The crucial factor is the ability to induce pressure from the outside- to serve notice on entrenched, insular, stagnant institutions that they need to make room for new ideas or face the penalty of being supplanted by a better alternative. I don't see any drawbacks to that prospect.
Winner take all is about the EC isn't it? You know how that gets changed - by each state deciding to drop it, that's all. California wouldn't do that when it was a reliable red state for president, and it won't do it now as a reliable blue one. It's just not in anyone (but the loser's) interest to change.
Yes you are a curmudgeon and theoretically you are correct about the nature of politics. However, I am an optimist, about doing the right thing and at least trying to achieve the right result. It would be beneficial even if some of the states failed in their effort. Its obviously a long process, but the process does get people involved
"When the SS America struck an economic iceberg, the country watched Democrats fill the lifeboats with guilty bank CEOs, then waved from the horizon as everyone else went down with the ship."
It's even worse. In order to coverup the failure/betrayal by Obama and the Democratic establishment, the party had to vilify half the country - anyone who didn't vote blue, no matter who - as ignorant, uneducated, resentful racists, conspiracy-nuts, and now insurrectionists and selfish anti-vaxers. As the coverup continues, it's clear to them that the only "solution" is Big Tech censorship to eliminate all social media "misinformation" that seems to be riling up the rabble. This is the way a society, not just an economy, falls apart.
I think that when this time is over (if we are still a free country) a lot of people are going to be back pedaling from what they did in the last two years - the dishonesty - the vitriol- the demonization and persecution of anyone with a different political opinion - the loss of an impartial justice system - the total impunity to treat other peole like dirt in the name of being virtuous. People are going to look around and say, “Hey! I was never a part of that - it wasn’t me”. But a lot of us who have had to live through it will never forget what this time felt like
It has been eye opening. Obama droned American citizens with out a Yelp of outrage. There are now political prisoners. I have worked, saved, paid taxes since 1972 and am now vilified for my sex and skin color. Never forget
Wish I could like this comment 10 times over
Lest we forget! BS we always forget, the lesson of history is we don’t learn from history.
I disagree. I think history is a wonderful teacher. It is just not taught.
Ok
Very well put. And so true.
It's a form of demonic possession -- in the manner of Doestoevsky's THE POSSESSED or Camus' THE PLAGUE.
“All I can say is that on this earth there are pestilences and there are victims– and as far as possible one must refuse to be on the side of the pestilence.”
― Albert Camus, The Plague
Shame on all who fomented this. Shame on them.
And shame on the people who embraced it willingly for profit or personal gain -- or even out of cowardice -- and looked the other way
They would say anti-vaxxers are on the side of pestilence. Reality is not so clear-cut.
People that have questions/concerns about this particular medicine(it is not a vaccine) are not “anti-vaxxers”
COVID Vaccines do not immunize you, as there are too many "BREAKTHROUGHS". How do you even determine a "Breakthrough":
CDC - A Vaccine BREAKTHROUGH infection is defined as the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen in a respiratory specimen collected from a person ≥14 days after they have completed all recommended doses of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized COVID-19 vaccine. (If you only have the "antigen" and not COVID are you still positive?)
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html
Potential for False Positive Results with Antigen Tests ...
At 0.1% prevalence, the PPV would only be 4%, meaning that 96 out of 100 positive results would be false positives. Health care providers should take the local prevalence into consideration when …
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/letters-health-care-providers/potential-false-positive-results-antigen-tests-rapid-detection-sars-cov-2-letter-clinical-laboratory
That test is being used until DECEMBER 31, 2021 as the CDC is only pulling it NOW when they knew about it as far back March of 2020.
28 days between shots + 14 days is 42days to be considered vaccinated. If a person dies FROM the vaccine, you will never know because they are considered UN VACCINATED and usually die within 2 weeks of first jab.
IF they die on the 41st day they are considered UNVACCINATED. Israel and UK keep track of vaccination deaths. Hear, they are just Unvaccinated deaths.
VAERS REPORT: "During this time, VAERS received 9,143 reports of death (0.0022%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it's unclear whether the vaccine was the cause."
Evidently VAERS last report was July 2021. There is a "Summery Report" 10/29/2021. But the report will only be up to July.
http://vaersanalysis.info/2021/10/29/vaers-summary-for-covid-19-vaccines-through-10-22-2021/
This is a comparison of all vaccines compared to COVID -
"Reported Deaths by Vaccine Type". -17,619 up to July.
In reporting VSAERS, which definition of "Vaccinated" are they using, FDA or CDC? Confusing, isn't it?
Belief structures resist easy objective validation. That's true. The best western ethics, religion and ethics have been able to do is call ethical truths "self-evident". But self-evidency isn't self evident to people embedded in belief structures.
One strange but true story related by Joseph Campbell in "Oriental Mythology" were the funeral rights of dead Egyptian pharaohs. Typically an entire cast of servants and staff would be buried alive with the pharaohs corpse to accompany him across the life-death divide. This was a common ancient practice in the near east (and possibly globally). Even in 1830 Campbell tells the story of a young teen girl in India whose husband died. She and her family believed it was her religious duty to bury herself alive with the husband's corpse. And she did without the slightest hesitation.
Belief structures about reality are incredibly plastic and fluid. It's hard indeed to form objective judgments -- that's been a main project of western though since the Greeks. Somehow circa 2000 BC or so near-eastern humanity abandoned the group burial and did it all through abstractions using illustration. But in historical time that wasn't very long ago.
It's a huge topic, of course, not easily treated in sound-bite comments. But yes, the vaxxers could easily persuade themselves antivaxxers are a threat to humanity. I don't think science would support that view, but that wouldn't stop them.
It makes death more palatable if they think it's just a passing through stage. That means to be freed from slavery, all they have to do is wait for the next life. You're worthless here but next time you might have a chance.
One can rationalize many things. Many evil things
Lots of stories are written, and those supporting ritual death usually had the power to shape the narrative. WWII Germany was an exception, and from there we have unvarnished accounts from the victims.
People should have the right to an opinion.
The death of democracy in America has been pronounced more times than the expiration of Jason Voorhees (“Friday the 13th”). The question is whether it was ever alive to begin with.
According to a report prepared for Congress by William Sheridan, white vigilantes committed more than 2,000 “political murders”, largely of blacks and radical Republicans, during the first 10 years of Reconstruction in Louisiana alone. Similar body counts were recorded in South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi. Democracy has long been America’s favorite blood sport.
St. Claire - Oct. 30, 2021
Craazyman is well read.
Although that would be a positive/hopeful thing, I don't see it happening. The other TKNews story got me thinking about how a person develops a BS detector. Is it genetic, did we get it from our upbringing, does the education system teach us that, is it learned behavior? In my puny and superficial brain I have arrived at --- personal interaction is major. We personally interacted with people growing up. Our folks told us stories about their personal interactions. We older people have had the benefit of personal interaction with our world. Are most interactions anymore (like this one) through a machine? Do all these people primarily using the machines for their contacts with other humans now have any idea of how to detect BS? Or lies. Or how to experience empathy.
With mask mandates, the pandemic and our government has now cut off facial expressions from one another. A friendly handshake? Dr. Fauci says it needs to go.
So how in the hell is anyone supposed to learn to empathize with anyone anymore? To your point, no one is going to back pedal (quaint term). Our federal government is sending the message: "Whatever happened needed to be done."
*I have seen reporting that the reconciliation bill establishes universal pre-K AND a requirement that you have to have a Bachelor's Degree to "teach" pre-K. Grandma, "You're fired."
It is so important right now for all of us to find "others" like ourselves, ie, who see the truth of what is happening. I have a heightened appreciation for my family and friends that I am traveling through this turbulent time with.
My friends are uninterested , they fight for their dogmas, are completely devoid of actual inquiry, they are marinated in the official story.
To be with them requires that I steer clear of any of these topics. I find it very hard to live with Grace.
This is my experience as well. Although I have loved arguing politics my whole life, not only can't you do THAT anymore, even the most mundane topic leads to disaster.
I mentioned to someone that I felt bad for people on the West Coast who are in the path of all the terrible fires (empathy), and said I'd seen a report that someone igniting bear urine in some kind of ritual had started one of the fires (science/humor). The response? "Yeah, stupid people, like that guy in the buffalo hat that stormed the Capitol." WTH? It's insane.
Don’t despair. Continue to reach out.
I’ve had to push the reset for sure. Distancing from some who, like you say, you can’t discuss anything with, and other friends who I’ve pulled closer to and even made new friends. It’s no fun being with the old friends who you have to self censor with. One friend actually said she could talk to her Republican friends better than me. We haven’t had much to talk about since then!
There it is, I also find the republicans more to my liking, so our little interchange is doomed. You see, I like Trump because he an incendiary device, his bloated personage, his bloviating, his lies when caught, his proud ignorance - it’s all a great comeuppance for the democrats and their pandering, virtue signaling, Obama’s soaring rhetoric and now their need to coverup for the sundowner in chief.
I am toast, I’m done, my good will is gone and I blame the hypocrites on your side (my former side) financed and complicit with the elite, Wall Street, MSM chattering class they have brought forth the Trump monster and I revel in it: wonderment.
Do not follow me, I may not lead
Do not walk ahead of me, I may not follow
Walk beside me and be my friend
Albert Camus
Are you describing Germany, circa 1946, or the current U.S.?
both I guess
Dude? They will crush all and any opposition.
Why?
Because the can.
I hope so, but fixing this will not be easy. This seems to me to be worse than the Civil War in many important ways.
Precursor?
T. I like your comment and wish it were so but: No way! Humans don’t admit guilt.
Tons of Nazis did just this.
"Hitler's Willing Executioners."
I read that book in grad school, and it is flawed, to say the least. Kind of an intellectual precursor to “White Fragility”-all Germans were born to kill Jews, nothing that could be done.
You're spot on.
This ongoing insanity is by design, that much is obvious. I only wonder if the goal is "only" their "D"espicable totalitarian power with one purpose: steal as much as possible while the power is absolute, or something more sinister is planned. (a destruction of the USA, which seems almost as plausible as the first outcome)
By “destruction of the USA” you mean the elites positioning themselves to reign over a nation of impoverished similar to China. This had already happened and will only get worse.
The old saying "as goes California, so goes the nation"?
With so much lying,deceit, and corruption; with so little accountability one begins to believe ever more worrying stories
And don't forget Russia-gate! The gift that keeps on giving, no matter how fraudulent.
All day long
Why can’t people see that we no longer have democracy. The Supreme Court killed democracy by voting 5 to 4 for Citizens United. They decided that “corporations are just like people”. That stupid decision has allowed a flood of corporate money to flow into Congress. No member of Congress has to go home and ask for money anymore. They just stay in DC and live off of their corporate sugar daddies. Voters no longer have a voice in government. Corporations have the only voice. It is grotesque that Democrats campaign to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. It was George Bush who gave that gift of prohibition to Big Pharma. Congress has sat on its hands for decades watching US citizens get ripped off by Big Pharma. That George Bush gift could have been changed any time, but they care more about corporate contributions than they care about citizens. If Citizens United is not reversed, we will never get our democracy back.
There is no difference between Pfizer spending for political ads or a CNN (or FNC or NYT) news report.
Think about it.
Twenty years ago many of us hoped the internet would change things forever. Maybe it has or still can. It's what the money guys are trying to censor, after all.
And restoring a legitimate news media. (ending the fake corporate media monopoly and coordinated big tech censorship). Substack and other independent journalism is a good start.
While we're at it, let's get the unions out of it, too. This is not a one-way street funded just by those entities. Unions give $$ to candidates to "bring home the bacon" just like corporations do. In both cases, the money corrupts the process. Let's focus on that, rather than who pays it.
Other countries have PUBLICLY funded elections. No corporate money, no union money, no private money. Just public money. The winners win on their merits, not based on how much they raised. All candidates have the same amount of money to work with. This is how we can get our democracy back.
Only issue I have with that is - who controls that money? Public funding is rife with the potential for manipulation by those in charge.
I agree. We can look at the other countries that do it, note their strong points and problems and go from there.
So would you consider democracy having worked if a majority votes to steal the labor of workers and give it all to non-workers? Because that is exactly where we are headed. We already have more than half the country that doesn’t pay federal income tax and most of that group actually receive federal money from any number of over 80 means tested welfare programs. A family of four can get over $100,000 a year in other people’s money without working a day. Is that “democracy”?
No, it's fiction.
More than half the country? I know a lot of people and I know of no one doing that. How many people do you know, and how many are doing that? Yeah, that's what I thought.
I think you are buying into fear mongering. Go out, meet more people, turn off the internet and radio and just live a little. It's not as bad out there as you think.
LOL. I’m not taking about people I know. I’m taking about government data that shows how many people make or don’t make enough money to pay federal taxes.
I don't disagree, but is money the problem, or a legislative structure that prevents another party/candidate from a fair shake in the election process? I sincerely believe "None of the Above" could now be US President.
Lyndon LaRouche (rest his soul) approves this message.
Yeah, no thanks.
Ah, so there will be some authority on who gets money and who doesn't? And to whom will that authority be accountable?
I thought you were the authority.
No money should go to Congress except voter money.
Citizens United wasn't about direct contributions to candidates or campaigns but about advertising apart from campaigns. Granted, the ads could make a particular candidate look bad but, again, that's no different than what a traditional news outlet can do in an editorial or news report.
Citizens United was NOT about "advertising apart from campaigns."
Citizens United took the shackles off the big spenders, and overturned 100-year old corruption laws. With Citizens United the majority of the Supreme Court essentially said: "independent" spending by corporations and big donors simply CAN'T be corrupt, overturning 100-year old anti-corruption laws.
"A 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court sided with Citizens United, ruling that corporations and other outside groups can spend unlimited money on elections.
In the court’s opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limiting “independent political spending” from corporations and other groups violates the First Amendment right to free speech. The justices who voted with the majority assumed that independent spending cannot be corrupt and that the spending would be transparent, but both assumptions have proven to be incorrect.
With its decision, the Supreme Court overturned election spending restrictions that date back more than 100 years. Previously, the court had upheld certain spending restrictions, arguing that the government had a role in preventing corruption. But in Citizens United, a bare majority of the justices held that “independent political spending” did not present a substantive threat of corruption, provided it was not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign."
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained
"The justices who voted with the majority assumed that independent spending cannot be corrupt and that the spending would be transparent," Yeah, and I've got a really nice bridge to sell you. A close examine of 5 bank accounts might be more to the point.
They didn't get there by being stupid or naive, so no, they didn't really believe that. It was just their excuse for a corrupt decision - corruption that goes clear back to the original "corporate personhood" decision in the 19th Century. That decision flies in the face of the Constitution; it was conscious corruption.
It is always important to note that there was never a Supreme Court decision that created corporate personhood in 1886. In the case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road, there was a head note attached to the decision by a law clerk that had no force of law. Coincidentally, the law clerk had ties to Southern Pacific Railroad. In any case, the question was never discussed during deliberation, only inserted after the fact.
Ah yes, the corruption that Dartmouth University as a corporate body had limited personhood (that was early 19th century). It wasn't Union Pacific that originated the doctrine, though it did add it's own twist. Funny how things can go when politicians attempt to use tax law for social engineering.
I'm quoting the Brennan Center report here. Those are not my words.
Citizens United was exactly about advertising apart from campaigns. You may not like it because to a large degree it leveled the playing field i.e. ABCNNBCBS etc were putting a partisan spin on news for decades.
You know, that Brennan Center seems like its something that should be regulated.
That was sarcasm.
Advertising is everything in a campaign.
You mean disseminating information. Suppose a fact isn't be reported by the media because the media gatekeepers are favoring a candidate. How do you get this fact to the public?
Exactly! Mainstream media lies by omission. People need to dig deeper for full news coverage.
Ah, so that explains how we had Hillary as President - because she sure as hell out-spent Trump in '16.
Actually, advertising is mostly waste; door-to-door campaigning is far more effective.
The donations that pay fo rthe advertising make very effective bribes, though.
...by way of lobbyists?
Money was (and "was" is in the appropriate tense) not the only electoral power that labor unions, when they were relevant, brought to the table. Their membership could use the the power of their numbers (since greatly diminished) to vote as a unit for one party or candidate. Political contributions, i.e. bribes, should never be the "be all, end all" of the political class. Money only corrupts the process. Organizing union members and other citizen groups around policies that benefit themselves should be the primary goal of our politics, not a horse race centered around who can raise the most cash.
"That stupid decision has allowed a flood of corporate money to flow into Congress"
Wow is that poor. Corporate donations were illegal in federal elections before Citizens United. Corporate donation were illegal after Citizens United. Check the Wikipedia page ('Corporate donations'). Quote
"n the US, corporations are prohibited from making expenditures to influence federal elections. Similar restrictions exist in many state elections and have been upheld by the US Supreme Court."
Citizens United, along with another ruling, also allowed for the creation of Super PACs which corporations can contribute unlimited amounts of dark money to. Political bribery and corruption have never been easier.
Corporate donations were capped at zero before CU, they still are. CU covers independent expenditures, not political donations.
A distinction without much of a difference when billions are involved.
You need to go back to the supreme Court’s 1976 decision, Buckley v. Valeo, which equated money with speech. Buckley was precedence for Citizens United. Reversing Citizens United would be like chopping down the tree. We need to pull it up by the roots — reverse Buckley, which institutionalized bribery.
Funny, but CU isn't the ruling that these folks think is relevant.
https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/super-pacs/2020
They were always capped at a certain amount. Now they are not.
Corporate donations were capped at zero before CU, they still are. CU covers independent expenditures, not political donations.
CU was just an extreme example of an existing condition. Corporate money flowed into congress before CU, and would continue to do so if CU was overturned tomorrow. “Corporations are like people” is the central premise of the notion of “corporations.” Historically. It just isn’t the case that CU is a dividing line between “democracy” and “post-democracy.” CU is a lousy decision that I’d like to see obliterated. But let’s not pretend it was the origin of anything — it was not. Money was corrupting politics long before CU. I get that there is something comforting in the notion that “if we could just kill the boogeyman (CU), everything would be alright.” It makes for a vision toward a more easily attainable good outcome — the “restoration of democracy.” But it is delusion. Overturning CU would be one step in the right direction. But one step in a long journey.
I would gladly take one step in the right direction. The second step would be more transparency. The term “dark money” was due to the many ways donations become difficult to scrutinize.
Interesting, since I've seen lots of congressional fundraisers in Michigan... and all Citizens United did was level the playing field between unions and corporation--which now are giving more to Democrats.
The numbers show that corporations donate more than PACS and unions.
Can’t find any evidence that supports your claim but do see that more corporate donations have been to Democrat candidates vs republicans over past few elections so what’s your point?
Public Citizen reports that corporate donations total $539 million. Only four of the top corporate donors are publically traded. Most have billionaire CEOs. The top corporate trade group is the Chamber of Commerce which gave $143 million.
But when you take into account the huge amounts from Bloomberg and Zuckerberg, et al., the Democrats get more in all.
exactly.
The first major benefactor of CU was Hilary Clinton. The second was Joe Biden. Please learn to read beyond the headline.
I follow the global pharma industry and know its costs and pricing model. I would love for Medicare to negotiate prices; I also know the consequences. Every other country in the world would see its prices rise high and irreversibly. AIDS drugs would be unaffordable in Africa. Anti-malarials would be priced beyond patients' ability to pay throughout the tropics. Anyone who believes that China is the only country that steals our intellectual property is drinking the Koolaid. Nearly every country that has the capability to manufacture drugs is also a thief, either intentionally or through willful blindness.
The other option is to stop research and development of new drugs. Orphan diseases will become incurable. The number of people with those diseases is approximately the same as the number of transgendered people. But, it's OK. Because people with orphan diseases don't vote as a single bloc for Democrats. They're disposable.
Pharma spends more on advertising than on research. Most research is funded by the government grants to research universities.
There are varying kinds of research. Basic research is funded by government grants in some areas. Long-term randonmized controlled trials are funded by the pharma companies. They are infinitely more expensive.
There are two exceptions. The first involved swine flu, where Gerald Ford had all research funded by government and then given away for free to private pharma manufacturers. The other is climate change.
You do understand that big Pharma spends more on advertising than drug research (most of which is spent on "me too" drugs rather than real breakthroughs? Simply ban drug advertising and "marketing" to doctors and that will more than offset any reduced corporate revenues. Also, most important drugs are the result of state NIH funding and then handed over free to the Pharma profiteers - thats especially true of orphan diseases. Your post reads like a Big Pharma set of talking points, utter BS designed to misdirect.
NIH does not fund the three levels of studies required before FDA approval. Big pharma has the capital to take that risk. Nine out of ten drugs that go thru the trials never get past the FDA. There is a symbiosis between scientific research by primarily academic institutions, much funded by NIH, and the pharmaceutical companies that can do the risk taking that simply has produced a myriad of life saving drugs during my lifetime, notwithstanding offending your ideological sensisbilities.
The NIH has a lot of power. The money they give out directs the way research is done. BARDA gets the nod from the NIH and they fund the trials. Big Pharma pays very little, and the taxpayer pays almost everything. Molupiravir was shelved because they feared people would not take the vaccine if COVID could be cured with a drug. Molnupiravir got funding throughout the trials and even the development of a manufacturing plant for 1.2 billion dollars. They do get funding for all phases of medicines they want to push out. Molnupiravir will be sold in the US for about $1000.00 for a 5-day course. It will be licensed to 100 countries so they can make generics for their populations. COVID was a national emergency, so BARDA paid everything.
For chronic illnesses like diabetes, high blood pressure, and dyslipidemia, trials are not funded. Generic drugs are repackaged and resold. Colchicine for Gout had been used for thousands of years. In 2011 the ten-cent pill went up to 5 dollars because a small change was made to the drug ingredients. The URL Pharma was allowed the price increase for three years. Recently insulin prices shot through the roof. Pharma takes an old drug off the market, makes a minor change, and sells it again. Other countries get the drug for less, but the guy in the US pays.
The US TAXPAYER IS PAYING HIGH PRICES TO SAVE THE REST OF THE WORLD. Is this compensation to BIPOCS in AFRICA for Western Colonization? Look at Hepatitis C Africa pays $5000. In the US, you spend $50,000, and we funded the Mavyret and Epclusa (for non-cirrhosis livers).
https://www.medicalcountermeasures.gov/app/barda/coronavirus/COVID19.aspx
https://www.hcplive.com/view/why-is-colchicine-so-expensive-now
You've pulled this out of your ass---it's not only incoherent, grammatically it makes little sense. Where are your sources for this jumble of balderdash? What three levels of studies? Read the links I sent to Bill Heath moments ago. Get yourself educated---unless your mission here is to spread propaganda, in which case be a bit more careful and creative with disseminating your propaganda.
Cut it with the Big Pharma talking points, the state does the risk taking until it is much less risky then BP runs with it. The state could easily run with it, just look at what Cuba has achieved with the little that it has (given the US illegal blockade). Most real breakthroughs are state funded and/or through scientific devotion, not for profit. BP is already bribed through lengthy patents (which much of their "research" and copious legal fees go toward extending). It seems that I am offending your ideological sensibilities, which are completely blinkering your worldview. So no more oxygen from me for your pathetic BP talking points.
Using Cuba as your example says all.
If you have such faith in govt research on pharmaceuticals you must equally find the process of military research and development to be just as clean and efficient.
Source?
Got a source for your rant?
According to https://www.statista.com/statistics/686906/pharma-ad-spend-usa/#:~:text=Get%20in%20touch%20with%20us%20now%2C%20Jun%205%2C,2019%20the%20pharma%20sector%20spent%206.56%20billion%20dollars. Spending was $6.58B.
According to https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-04/57025-Rx-RnD.pdf (Congressional Budget Office) Research and Development spending was $83B.
So, in your universe, 6.58 > 83. Woke math? I suppose claiming the reverse is racist, homophobic, xenophobic and the list goes on. Please in the future read beyond political talking points.
Here hon---some bedtime reading for you. Plenty more when you're finished with these.
And: you're full of shit.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm
https://naturalsociety.com/research-development-new-drugs-not-paying-off-6321/
http://www.bu.edu/sph/files/2015/05/Pharmaceutical-Marketing-and-Research-Spending-APHA-21-Oct-01.pdf
https://www.csrxp.org/icymi-new-study-finds-big-pharma-spent-more-on-
https://www.ahip.org/wp-content/uploads/202107-AHIP_Rx-MarketingRD-1.pdf-and-marketing-than-rd-during-pandemic/
https://www.aplususapharma.com/blog/marketing-vs-research-which-gets-more-attention-funding-by-pharma-companies/
https://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e4348
https://www.ahip.org/new-study-in-the-midst-of-covid-19-crisis-7-out-of-10-big-pharma-companies-spent-more-on-sales-and-marketing-than-rd/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40545-018-0132-3
Always so pleasant to hear from you. I thought I'd check the quality of your references. The first one is written by a couple of Canadians 13 years ago based on 17 year old data. Since then the biggest cost of bringing a new drug to market (total about $2.6B) is manufacturer-paid clinical studies requiring on average twelve-to-fourteen years.
Your second citation claims that marketing costs are 19 times "basic research." Of course, they are. Basic research is the quickest and cheapest part of the cycle. It's the extended clinical trials that cost money. Operation Warp Speed was a huge game changer.
You don't address the influence of required reserves to pay claims, many of which are frivolous, e.g., that male Aleutian Islanders who are pregnant and at greater than 60,000 feet altitude have an extraordinary lack of positive outcomes from the drugs. That's why it's so much more attractive to manufacture a Me-Too drug.
No point in going on. You'd just post more low-value links that demonstrate no understanding of the issues. Next time you need medical help call a DNC talking points author.
BTW, the new tin-foil hat is very flattering.
"....You don't address the influence of required reserves to pay claims, many of which are frivolous, e.g., that male Aleutian Islanders who are pregnant and at greater than 60,000 feet altitude have an extraordinary lack of positive outcomes from the drugs. That's why it's so much more attractive to manufacture a Me-Too drug...."
That's correct. I don't address "the influence of required reserves to pay claims, many of which are frivolous, e.g., that male Aleutian Islanders who are pregnant and at greater than 60,000 feet altitude have an extraordinary lack of positive outcomes from the drugs..."
Because that would be exchanging crazy talk with a crazy man. And I try to avoid that sort of thing, though I confess that I sometimes fail...
For anyone out there who would like an introduction to the perfidy of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, check out some of the links above, read them, and let them lead you to other similar links.
Do your own research. There are dozens of studies by reputable research institutions, scholarly trade journals and magazines, academic institutions, etc. that overwhelmingly and incontrovertibly show that Big Pharma is a Big Spender when it comes to advertising and marketing, and becoming ever more Scrooge-like when it come to research and development.
Big Pharma + Big Marketing = Big $$$$. Big Pharma has Big Smile.
On the other hand: Big Pharma + Big Research & Development = Not Real Big $. Big Pharma Frown.
Big Pharma Bad Habits Such As: eschewing research for new and needed drugs, because it's expensive to develop new drugs. Much cheaper and more profitable to flood market with variations of already existing drugs that have no improved therapeutic function, but will make lots of moolah for Big Daddy Pharmacy.
But don't take my word for it. Do your own research. And don't bother Bill. He's up in Unalaska negotiating with a few pregnant Aleuts, all of them men he tells me, and there are some complications owing to their altitude, 60,000 feet, or some damn thing of that nature....
"...No point in going on." Agreed.
But the ability of corporations to contribute to political campaigns only equalized the game, since labor unions had been the strongest supporters of the Democrats, who got far more contributions for the labor unions than the Republicans, until Citizens United (temporarily) equalized things.
In 2020 corporations gave far more support to the Democrats, partly through backdoor techniques such as the more than $100 million donated to Democrat-run cities and countries for "get-out-the-vote" efforts.
Any reversal of Citizens United would HAVE to end labor union donations as well.
You're kidding yourself if you think Labor Unions are even remotely close to influencing elections to the extent that Super PACs are or even were before Citizens United. Do you really think labor unions consisting of the working class have the finances to compete with Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce? I'm happy to take that trade-off any day of the week if it gets money out of politics but we all know that won't happen.
Workers unions have substantial amounts of money, since a portion of the "dues" is used for political purposes. Many of them made contributions of more than $20 million in 2020: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/top-organizations Of the top ten donor organizations, the Republicans got $510 million, and the Democrats $427 million; not a big difference.
If you look at your own link, you'll see unions are far down that list of contributors. Bloomberg and Adelson alone dwarf them and Bloomberg just happened to support the Democrats last year. He'll happily give to the Republicans and has in the past if the Democrats don't do as he wants (re: electing "nothing will fundamentally change," Joe Biden). None of its good.
Government unions contribute volunteers to Democrats' campaigns, replacing paid workers. None of that is counted. In some cases, if the government employee unions can't get someone to fill a slot otherwise filled by a paid worker, the union pays the salary for the worker, and none of that is counted either. If we get big money out of political campaigns, Democrats will find they're somewhere behind the Green Party.
https://nypost.com/2021/10/13/mark-zuckerberg-spent-419m-on-nonprofits-ahead-of-2020-election-and-got-out-the-dem-vote/
The Ds/Zuckerberg are ahead of the game……
The real money is corporate money that funds philanthropies, and lobbyists to social engineer the country. It is the Uniparty that funds this Lincon Project Republicans and Democrats. Both sides don't do anything to change the tax laws that Reagan put in place in 1981. The Economy Recovery Tax Act of 1981. The rich can make you a serf and they get a tax break to do it. No other country lets Philanthropy advocate policy
More bullshit.
"Big Pharma" has been good for the U.S. We have the best access to medicines thanks to their research and testing (often a billion dollars from start of research before the approval process is completed, and sometimes the medicine is rejected by the FGDA).
I meant FDA.
Nonsense
Wow, is this ever wrong.
Simple structural change, that is a source of hope.
"Why can’t people see that we no longer have democracy."
Pssst, we didn't have it before either. You couldn't have made it out of 8th grade in California public schools 50 years ago without knowing that.
The mainstream media is all owned by huge corporations.
We have news media, just not mass. Mass media is corporate owned, and they lack the one thing that would really help most: journalism.
If you want news, go to the internet... while you still can.
Peace!
Looking forward to watching the video, because this discussion in print is sort of off-putting.
". . .(R)ace certainly played a significant role . . ." in the Dems losing in 2016. Really? What if Trump would have run against, say, Colin Powell, or how about Oprah, instead of HRC? Why is race the go-to with Dems? I say this as a life-long Dem (until recently) who ran for and held local elective office as a Dem. Apparently NO discussion of the shortcomings of the Dem party can be had without prefacing that America is racist. Despite electing and re-electing an African-American President.
And the series is meant as a "wakeup call for the Democrats." Almost sounds like the White House Press Secretary saying that when they get the messaging right, all will be well.
"Corruption" is the word. Not only of financial policy, but of the concept of governance. In 2008 The Chicago Way took over the federal government. For readers who want some insight into what that means, dial up some articles by John Kass, who used to occupy the Mike Royko desk at The Chicago Tribune. Control is the end game.
The power that was wielded in taking care of the 2008 corrupt parties in need may look pretty subdued compared to what is going on now with the Attorney General and the Department of Justice. In 2008 the PTB stole our life-long earnings. They are now coming for our liberty and certain forms of dissent. Good times.
Trump never hid who he was, yet he got millions of votes. Even if he had not won that should have alerted the Dems to a problem. But at Organizing For America, victory is a number, and the real problems of the little people are just a news cycle management issue.
So true. Taibbi always pisses me off with the scraps of mind-food he throws to the "they're all racists" crowd -- as much as I respect most of what he writes, and I do respect most of it. But "race certainly played a significant role" . . . ??
Would you care to substantiate that Matt? If it's true, then how did Obama get elected twice? Or are you throwing tens of million of people under the bus just to keep the lefty-media cocktail party circuit safe going for you? (Just ribbin' ya dude, sort of . . . )
Cartoon journalism -- per the methods cited in Hate Inc. -- creates cartoon reality.
There are no citizens or fellow Americans in cartoon reality, no people just like you and me, imperfect and flawed, but basically average and wanting to get along.
Cartoon reality is a mass hallucination haunted by Jungian shadow projections, poltergeists, demons and assorted Great Satans. In cartoon reality all white people are racists, January 6 was an "insurrection", communists are trying to take over the U.S., black people can't leave the house without getting murdered by police, terrorists are behind every Bush (pun intended), Ivermectin is a "horse dewormer" no sane person takes, and 2+2 = 55 if your employer tells you it does and you want your job. History shows humanity has always lived there, in part, and in the worst times in history, in full.
God help any society who thinks cartoon reality is a good place to live.
Usually when the cartoons come to life it's like something out of the Bible, and the Old Testament not the new one, when God was an angry God and he laid waste to entire cultures who worshipped graven images.
The tricky thing about observing cartoon reality is avoiding the belief that you don't live inside your very own.
"God help any society who thinks cartoon reality is a good place to live."
I would like to carve out an exception for Jessica Rabbit.
"I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."
With the imagery of Jungian shadow projections, I couldn't help but think of Plato's Allegory of the Cave mixed in with Old Testament lore. The coffee is kicking in.
Abraham lifting the knife into the air breathlessly waiting for God to give him a sign. Is that a ram in the thicket? No. Oh well. God demands a sacrifice. The messiah will get here eventually but for now, Abraham's sacrifice of his only son will have to be enough.
And naturally, the dissidents will remain in the city of sin. Sodom but with unfettered speech. The place got a bad rap. I blame the PR. Poor corporate sponsorship. The path to our collective enlightenment will be littered with pillars of salt. A stark reminder to everyone that our new gods are jealous gods.
We are being pushed further and further back into the cave. Shadow puppets on the wall. Is this the Today Show or CNN? No, this is a Progressive commercial. No! It's Pizza Hut or maybe it is AT&T. What is Brian Stelter doing in a commercial along with Al Roker?
The least I could ask for is Jessica Rabbit.
Whoa! . . . .
Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be putting me on"
God say, "No". Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killing done?"
God says, "Out on Highway 61
-B. Dylan, Highway 61
If this is what you experience when the coffee kicks in, you probably want to avoid mushrooms and other hallucinogens.
My dealer was in Sodom. I make do what what I have.
Interesting post!
This. The Resko deal Obama got in Chicago should have been a tip off
The saddest thing is the demonizing of Donald Trump and all his supporters. Instead of 4 years of Russian Collusion, and impeachment and Schiff, there could have been debate on the real issues facing this country. Trump Derangement Syndrome was and is still real. And I think disgraceful. Its always been an excuse for covering up business as usual by the Congress.
I was initially terrified of Trump being President, and voted for Jill Stein in 2016. But I listened to
what he said, and there were some good things, but when the entire Congress is against you,
even your own party, its pretty hard to stay on course. Its time for the disaffected to get together, from all different philosophies, but those who really care about this country, and organize state by state, my suggestion is get rid of Winner Take All, (Nebraska and Maine do it) and build local organizations, thats the only way and its not going to be easy to change the
dismal road our country seems to be going down. Truthfully everytime someone focuses on dissing Trump, I'm turned off of whatever else they may have to say. So Sue me Sue me shoot bullets through me"!!!!!!!!forgot what musical thats from.
Guys and Dolls.
thank you, one of my favorite showsll
I've tailed Donald Trump for more than 35 years. I was probably one of the first few hundred people in Manhattan (and thus the world) who read Graydon Carter's unparalleled summation of Trump ---"short-fingered vulgarian"--- in Spy Magazine in the late 80s.
As well as being a short-fingered vulgarian, and regardless of what you think of him as a politician or statesman, Trump is also unquestionably a horse's ass, has always been a horse's ass, and will always be a horse's ass. I also believe he became an unfortunate distraction from more serious and pressing problems requiring the full attention and focus of a good many Americans, citizens and leaders alike.
But: Runyonland Music/Fugue for Tinhorns/Follow the Fold---Stubby Kaye · Johnny Silver · Douglas Deane.
From the original 1955 stage production of Guys and Dolls.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be7SDYbG_m8
Think about the profound level of intellectual dishonesty, and/or profound lack of self-awareness, currently projected by the Trump-hating Biden-loving elite political media chattering class as we...
- Have millions of COVID-infected illegal immigrants streaming across the southern border and being shipped to red states after Trump had effectively stopped the caravans.
- Have run-away inflation due to Democrat COVID "relief" spending in excess of what was required.
- Have supply chain breakdowns and empty shelves.
- Have COVID infection rates, case rates and death exceeding that during Trump's term after being assured by Biden that he would end the pandemic.
- Have run-away crime in all the major big cities that Democrats control.
- Have small businesses being destroyed from draconian shutdowns and then lack of employees because of the Democrats paying people not to work... and then hear about the Democrat's plans to raise taxes on those same small business owners. Meanwhile watching the Democrat's meg-corporate campaign donors have their best years ever.
- Have our major allies disgusted with our disastrous Biden pullout of Afghanistan.
- See China launching hypersonic nuclear capable missiles while Biden appoints transgender 4-star Admirals.
With all this and more, we get to read that the real threat to the nation is the "cult of Trump" and the people supporting him are just too ignorant to see the truth.
No, just like this Meltdown book... the explanation for Trump is that the Democrats suck pond water more than the Republicans suck pond water. They have since Bill Clinton blew his bad sax on late night and Monica blew his bad sax late at night. Trump is a symptom of the American voting public seeing the pond water sucking and knowing that the country needs someone to clean it up.
There is reporting that the Mayor of Chicago is proposing $500 guaranteed monthly (I think) income to 5,000 families, to be paid out of COVID relief funds that were voted on that last time around. Now, one may think guaranteed minimum income is a good or bad thing, but the Covid funds were sold as necessary because of the special circumstances of the pandemic. That big stash of Covid dough really was for the next election, wasn't it?
And now Biden wants to give illegal immigrants $450,000 each.
This idea is so stupid/unbelievable, I thought it has to be "fake news." If it is not, do people who work hard and pay their bills and taxes need anymore information on what the Democratic Party thinks of you?
It is real.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/29/why-biden-administration-would-pay-much-450000-separated-immigrant-families/
Many years ago my Congressman was having one of those meet/greet things at a tiny town near us. It was at a time when a "Comprehensive Immigration Bill" was up for debate; Obama may still have been our US Senator. Anyway, I told my guy I was ashamed that our government was encouraging a criminal enterprise, human trafficking. Here we are, YEARS later, and it is human trafficking on steroids. So despicable.
When that bill came out, the CBO put out a report analyzing the effects. It would have lowered hourly wages for American workers by like 25 cents, and would have reduced illegal immigration by only like 25%. Other issues - like fees waived, health insurance, housing, etc. And nobody cared. Wages for Americans especially shouldn't be lowered - they were already flatlined enough.
I genuinely have no clue what they're thinking on that one. They basically just handed the midterms over to Republicans. Anybody have a genuine guess as to what the logic and strategy is of that? Because i'm totally blank.
It has to do with the Trump admin separating illegal migrant children from their parents at the border. Attorneys (of course) sued the government and Biden is considering paying them. It'll be a cool million if the family has two children. Every single American needs to know that this even under consideration! Absolutely absurd!
I know what it's for, but wtf with that number. A bunch of reasonable tweets from Republicans along the lines of "the Biden administration gave Americans $1300 but want to give illegal immigrants $450,000".
What could possibly go wrong.
And if a family member is killed in active service the next of kin gets $400,000! Completely nuts!
I do not know any Biden-loving people - in fact I think most are either Meh (better than the last guy, wash their hands of it) or i always vote Team Dem because of so&so issue. There cannot be very many people who say to themselves --- " I love Joe Biden " - he evokes the feeling of slightly better than a turd in the punch bowl.
Lets avoid love-hate, good-bad, left-right binaries -- they are too simplistic as to convey real underlining meaning. Intellectual dishonesty needs to be sorted out by all of us (not just those who live over there).
The transgender woman appointed as admiral is in the public health service. I don't think she has the authority to counter Chinese missle strikes. But hey, make all the non sequitur connections you want if it helps you get into the frothy rage you've become addicted to.
OK, right, sure---yes yes yes.
I'm always dumbfounded when I meet people that believe the major parties have interests other than furthering their own power. Similarly, I can't understand people that don't recognize that the majority of politicians operate purely for their own self interest. The Congress is bought off and has been for a long time. What progress do people observe in solving our nation's problems to make them think otherwise?
I can't remember where I heard this, but people can't seem to see beyond their own noses. IOW what people see is only that which directly, substantially relates to their own lives. It is a reflection of this dissonance that we practice a civic religion called celebrity worship and that includes political support - we are voting for our 'favorite' celebrity politician, usually. These politicians, and their parties, are like actors and movie sets -- we all know how fake Hollywood is, but we still buy the ticket. Cuz if that's all there is, well ...you know the song.
What annoyed me most when all that was going down was that a few people WERE asking those questions, but the pols, including Obama, would give these sly hints that they didn't like it either but there was nothing they could do without wrecking the economy further. It was like they possessed some specialized, Insider knowledge from Experts that the rest of us couldn't understand or they couldn't tell us. It was obvious Dodge Ball from the jump and the more they did it, the more patronizing, no paternalizing, it sounded. At that point is was obvious, the fix was in.
Obama was the epitome of patronizing, always talking down to people from his exalted view of himself.
the greatest comedy of this all.. are the suckers' that childishly label obummer a socialist. rofl.
his entire admin was deeply neoliberal. aka libertarian.
the us is a galt's gulch, libertarian shithole, after decades of Buchanan, Freidman, Chicago school bs, all derivatives of Hayek's pimping lies about the dominion of the inbreds born into perverse wealth.
"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed." - Adam Smith The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter VI
Neoliberalism did this.
#HostLife the people are "hosts" (food - rent slaves) for the inbred 1% parasites (leeches - rent collectors)
With a great deal of noise and made-4-tv passion, the neoliberal puppets pimped their "freedom" and "liberty" message, to the gathered "hosts" (food for the inbred parasites), and all the Opus Dei sheep, clapped excitedly for their own slaughter~
Free Market:
To the classical economists, an economy free of land rent, usurious banking practices and monopolies in private hands. But as finance capitalism has superseded industrial capitalism, it has inverted “free market” rhetoric to mean a market free FOR rent extractors to obtain land rent, natural resource rent, monopoly rent and financial gains “free” of government taxation or regulation. This INVERTED re-definition depicts a free market as one free for the financial and propertied classes to subject the economy to a network of extractive tollbooth fees. Such a “free market” has become a doublethink term for the path to neo-feudalism, financialization and kindred rentier policies. (See Free Lunch, Kleptocrats and Road to Serfdom.)
Hudson, Michael. J IS FOR JUNK ECONOMICS: A Guide To Reality In An Age Of Deception
The RNC and DNC, like the corporate state media, are force multipliers for global generational wealth and power.
The Mont Pelerin Society's (Austria 1940's) favorite "economist" F. v Hayek proposed path of "liberty" and "freedom", 4 "planks": [only for the 1% (Neoliberalism)] (Buchanan, Friedman, the "Chicago School", were later disciples and advocates)
1) Deregulate global financial markets - DONE
2) Deregulate global trade - DONE
3) Create the illusion and urgency of national bankruptcy with fake (fiat) debt (thereby neuter a nation's capability to enforce laws - eliminate the people's ability to defend against being overwhelmed and consumed by the 1%) - DONE
this manufactured illusion of bankruptcy is critical path for the 1%'s agenda. the "debt" is used to justify austerity measures for the people, and to tee up, the privatization plan, which is about transforming the public debt, into private debt, where the 1% can extract usury, ad infinitum.
#AusterityIsCode4Looting - austerity measures are plain evidence, the system has already been looted by generational globalist wealth.
then lastly, the kill shot:
4) Privatize Everything. recreate us ALL as permanent rent payers of even the most basic necessities of life (Air, water, food, shelter, health care). the public debt of a nation has been effectively eliminated, transmuted into private debt (bonds); the service of which (usury) is FOREVER- Almost COMPLETE
#PrivatizationIsTheft - privatization today is STRICTLY about prioritizing national productivity (work) away from the commons and general welfare, extracting and transferring it to the 1% rent-seeking parasites (Extreme Redistribution of wealth from the people TO the Billionaires, NOTHING for the people)
the use of "liberal" in this context, describes the "liberal" (freely used, as one would "liberally" spread butter on toast) projection of any and all force available to maintain, enhance, and grow, a condition of monopolized wealth and power, in the hands of a small group of generational feudal lords.
"his entire admin was deeply neoliberal. aka libertarian."
Disagree, because neoliberal and libertarian are not the same thing at all. I'll give you neoliberal. But the Obama administration was in no way libertarian, in fact i voted for the Libertarian candidate in '12 because the Obama administration increased the power of the government in so many ways. From surveillance of private citizens to Terror Tuesdays to banning news organizations and photographers from press conferences, and to bailing out banks. These are not libertarian principles.
Full disclosure - I'm not a Libertarian, I'm independent and Bernie is my guy.
disagree. read what neoliberalism is, and you will see, it IS libertarianism. Its john galt. it's dominionism. the belief that people born into perverse wealth, are granted by gawd, the right to own us all as cattle, do what they please. privatize every last thing. the every fact they were inheritance winners, means, natural control should be given to them. one has to look past the slogan and freedumb nonsense. sure libertarians want to stop endless wars, end the drug wars.. but they believe we can somehow trust in benevolence of a few that inevitably exercise a monopoly of force. its patently absurd.
What's absurd is that you believe the monopoly of force is exercised by those outside the govt. Libertarians have lots of impractical ideas (particularly if you run into the anarcho- branch), but they don't believe in the benevolent use of force.
The government exercises its monopoly of force to advance the interests of a small group of powerful people who exist outside of government, but have enormous influence on the people who are inside the government. It's a distinction without a difference.
neoliberals, libertarians, all support the increase of government, despite their flowery bs to the contrary. they want a militarized force, to protect the common land they stole, from the people they stole it from. these are the facts on the ground, the history, not the empty thesis and prose.
Ah. A socialist who thinks we get rid of that nasty freedom and some utopia will roll in. No. What’ll you get is a new class of overlords. See history.
Why pivot to assumptions revolving around socialism after reading this kind of assessment? Who is advocating that "we get rid of that nasty freedom?" Whatever the hell that means.
But things are so much better in Venezuela now! No has to decide what kind of cereal to buy! There isn't any! And Sean Penn really, really likes it there.
You're assuming he has a solution. Seems to me he's just describing the problem, accurately. Doesn't mean any solution need exist.
See Astral Star Codex on Moloch.
Street cred: My great grandparents were murdered by the Soviets. Not advocating we go back there.
This is all very obvious...to those who are paying attention and doing the research.
So...not you? What research would you like to cite?
Lol. Everything is much better in North Korea. They don't have the scary things. Go there. Or maybe Cuba? You can drive a 57 Chevy too! Lol.
Dolt. Troll. Moron.
Brilliant riposte. Lol.
Oh look! A troll! What a pretty color of brown.
That's right. Anything to avoid reality. Keep smoking the really strong stuff.
Well to be fair, the really strong stuff 's green.
There are so many reasons and ways to say: "America is circling the drain, we are completely fucked" -- and then you look at the sold out arenas and stadiums for basketball and football games and it looks completely normal and sane; the national anthem is playing, people have their hands over their hearts. It's the very definition of cognitive dissonance...
Maybe that should tell us that America is more than just DC and Wall Street.
We all live in our own bubbles, intersecting with some, isolated from others. America is as deep or shallow, wide or narrow depending on our perception and experience. However that doesn’t change the fact that things are not going well.
This type of article sure is interesting. I’m remind of events from more than 12 years ago and I’m also reminded how thick people are. It’s hard to know how to interpret the thought processes of people like Matt and this David guy, but I eventually conclude they say what they say, in the way they say it, so as to justify their work.
Consider this description of Trump, “ …a foul-mouthed game show host“‘. Ok, that works for the moment, but where’s the comment of “… a foul-mouthed former, 6 term US Senator from Delaware”? Do Matt &/or David think Trump is unique in foul-mouthness?
Throughout this article one might conclude the author(s) really were surprised by the behavior of the political class. That might explain a lot, if sharp people like Matt are deceived by politician’s promises, it’s no wonder the diverse dolts in the MSM are so easily duped into being Satan’s mouthpieces.
There was one funny line tho, “In a crisis, a leader in full control of the government has to act decisively, …”. As a 64 y/o geezer I can say without a lot of fear of contradiction, I don’t think, in my lifetime, we have ever had such a leader.
Lyndon Johnson could have fit that description (Civil Rights and War on Poverty), but he went wrong on Vietnam. Foreign policy as not his strong suit and the military industrial complex/CIA and Cold War liberals played him.
You consider that to be decisive? I can see it as acting divisive maybe, but not decisive.
Being decisive often pisses some people off. The trick is to piss off the right people. On Civil Rights, the south was wrong and pissing them off was the right and necessary thing to do. You may not agree, but I think Johnson did the right thing even if too many people are still pissed off and still trying to keep Black people from voting.
I’m not arguing the merits, just that it doesn’t strike me as decisive. Civil Rights was well on its way; war on poverty was a political maneuver, much like Biden wanting to buy off illegal aliens with their proposed “compensation”. Divisive, not decisive.
https://www.salon.com/2021/10/28/biden-administration-may-pay-out-more-than-1-billion-to-migrant-families-separated-under/
If you think the Civil Rights bill could have been passed by anyone but Lyndon Johnson, I think you need to read some history. He made the decision despite knowing his party would lose the South because he knew it was in the long-term interest of the country and was the right thing to do. He was the right person in the right place at the right time and he knew that and acted on that knowledge. Name another president since Johnson who has done that. The rap against Obama is that he could have done something like that - he had a mandate - but he didn't, for whatever reason.
I think, and this is just opinion, that Obama just didn’t give a shit about ordinary people, black or white. What he loved was being the big Kahuna
I don’t disagree, even as VP & President, LBJ still had the Senate twisted around his finger. Remember, proportionally the Republicans were the majority supporters of the act. Al Gore Sr, a leading Democrat voted against it along with others.
As for it’s affect on the Democrat’s grip on southern states, while it pushed some whites to the Republican Party, it was what moved 99% of all blacks into the Democrat Party plantation, where most still reside. LBJ was corrupt, but he wasn’t stupid.
It doesn’t strike me as decisive, only divisive.
I disagree with your last point
Try FDR on for size!
FDR was one of the monied elite, and was supposed to operate less as a populist, but what the business class (who once tried to have him killed - see the Business Plot involving General Smedly Butler) did not account for was how much polio affected him and his world view. He believed that people ought to have a home, a decent job and a warm meal (safety or protection from the exploitation of capital).
And the business community is in the US is the one brought in Truman to supplant Henry Wallace, funded Hitler's rise after WW1 and even secretly during WWII, and was incensed at the New Deal policies (they learned from this and learned how to destroy these policies from within (government is the problem Neoliberal Reaganism) and from the outside (thinktanks like the Heritage Foundation, National Association of Manufacturers, and the Chamber of Commerce - along with the Mont Pelerin Society).
This business class (most white) used LBJ's Civil Rights Act to merge coalitions of white southern racists, religious institutions, and small town business men into a generational voting block that in large parts makes up the past John Birch Society - still afraid of communism with the newer Trump voters who want to see the whole thing go up in flames rather the vote for lying snakes in the Democratic Party.
So, FDR is correct but more a product a different time, and a much different opponent (as the financial crashes of 20's & 30's - gave executive authority and government an opportunity that does not exist in 2021). However, to Matt's point - it did exist in 2008-09 - which explains a lot about Obama.
Financialization, Deregulation and Privatization as well (second paragraph)
It’s obvious math is your strong suit
Matt, you're both overthinking something that is very simple. The reason Trump won in 2016 was because he was running against one of the most corrupt candidates in US history. There's good reason Arkansas voted some 25% against their former governor's wife. Obama won in 2008 because the economy collapsed and was reelected because the GOP ran Mitt Romney, a lackluster candidate at best. Journalists and political pundits make big deals out of "issues" the general public is barely aware of.
I am always surprised by people who interpret incredibly modest changes in electoral results as compelling evidence of what Americans want. It is worth considering that there has been only one landslide presidential victory in my adult lifetime - Reagan in '84. The actual vote totals don't strongly suggest any clear movement of the population since the country unequivocally decided in 1984 that European-style social democracy is bad policy.
I'm not of these people that believe in the uniparty. There are meaningful differences in the type of government we would have if presidents from different political factions achieved enduring political power. But imagining that 1.5% vote swings from election to election means that Americans have endorsed this or that thing seems like a mistake.
Yes, but the real problem is that the actual two major parties have been effectively united for years in being against important issues that are strongly supported by a large majority of voters, such as lowering prescription drug prices, universal and affordable health care, tuition-free higher education, a significantly higher minimum wage, paid family leave, affordable child care, higher taxes for the wealthy, limiting the influence of big money in political campaigns and doing more to deal with climate change. There is a lot of media theater around social issues, but nothing ever gets done because the big donors and corporate lobbies that fund both parties effectively veto the majority of citizens who repeatedly support needed change on these issues. These issues never come up for a clear and honest vote and that's not an accident. It's called oligarchy, not democracy.
Nothing ever gets done because these are not simple problems with clear solutions. Let's take "lowering prescription drug prices" as an example. We all know how to do it - arbitrarily setting medicare reimbursement rates at lower prices. This is exactly what European and Canadian health authorities do. The problem is that not everyone can be a free rider. Europe and Canada can get away with this solely because the U.S. marketplace exists and virtually all new drugs are developed with an assumption of generating returns from that less price-regulated U.S. market.
As long as European countries set reimbursement rates well above the marginal cost of the drug's production, it'll still make sense for the pharmaceutical company to sell at those rates. But they are absolutely free-riding on the U.S. market, which generates the profits necessary to actually develop the drug. This is not a secret. Everyone knows this. Every 3 or 4 years some politician starts talking about letting drug distributors re-import US drugs from European and Canadian markets and everyone points out that the actual end result of that will not be lower prices in the U.S. but a cessation of sales of the drug at all to Europe and Canada. Now, some people (Trump among them) thought we should do that anyway just to prove the very point I'm making. But understand there is no magical way to reduce drugs costs except to be a resident of a free-rider country. And we can't all be.
Some truth there, but after we realize that Cali and NY were far different places back in '84, and by "different places" I mean not so staunchly Dem, Trump really did destroy. A landslide, one might say:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/countymaprb1024.png
Trump got 2MM more votes than Romney (in a year when turnout was slightly higher and voting age eligible population was also slightly higher). In a nation of 250MM+ voting eligible people, that's a really small difference with probably a range of factors all of which are themselves even smaller.
What if there are 100,000 anti-Mormons in America. 100,000 people that blame private equity for their unemployment? 100,000 black people that voted for Obama because he was black but really couldn't care less between Dems or GOP. 100,000 people that think undocumented Central American migration lowered their property values or employment opportunities. 100,000 people that just loved Trump's reality TV shows. 100,000 people that are still offended by Hillary Clinton mocking them for baking cookies for their children. I mean, some of these things are probably true and some of them aren't and they are probably all dwarfed by the number of people that just think Hillary is a crooked liar. My point though is that from election to election, the actual vote changes are super modest and given the large number of evolving factors and explanations, American political preferences have been remarkably stable and immune to changes in the actual candidates. I reiterate my position that the only fundamental change in 40+ years is the Reagan/Thatcher realignment.
Sure but we're not talking about 100k votes here, we're talking about 6M. If Cali and NY weren't so politically polluted, Trump would have owned the popular vote too, and by a lot.
I mean, it's why we shouldn't expect GOP winning the popular vote again in our lifetime. Lucky for us, it may be a disadvantage but it also doesn't matter all that much.
Nah, the fat dude from Flint was right. We (I) wanted Trump to burn the whole fucking thing down. And he did. We are now more aware then we were before how corrupt it all is.
Well the Dems are now doing Burn It Down Better
Yes, but they are doing it to the country not the swamp.
Matt, I get why you have to put in the obligatory digs at DJT, but don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the guy is as sincere as you and hates corruption as much?
Nope.
I grew up with DJT, in the sense that he's always been in the media since I became aware of such things (mid-70's). "Sincere" is not any character trait I would have applied to the DJT I've known for 50 years.
Judge the vine by the fruit. This isn't about aesthetics but actions. Why did Trump take on Boeing? Big Pharma? Why didn't he strike the Iranian missile bases -- as was the strong desire by the Military-Industrialists -- after their attack on the Saudi oil refinery? Why did he pull out of Syria -- or try to anyway -- again despite strong opposition from the MIC & Beltway pundits?
Why did he replace NAFTA with something we can live with? Why did Big Tech hate him? You think Jeff Bezos & Mark Zuckerberg care about you? Why did the FBI & CIA hate him? Having the right enemies counts for much credit.
Con man? Seriously? He didn't con me. I liked cheap gas. What is your problem with oil independence, anyway.
BTW, did you know greenhouse emissions dropped under Trump? https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-drop-trump-climate-experts/story?id=74848440
But hey, when the political fashionistas tell some what to think those some have to obey.
He sincerely has a very high opinion of himself. I think we can all agree on that.
Well, so does Obama, and so do the Clintons. He's not exactly unique on that front.
Narcissism is the main feature of most politicians.
touche
He does what he says he’s going to do. That’s a start
Like new trade deals that are better for companies he's invested in? Yep.
The man only does something if it benefits him. Nothing weird about that, that's who Trump is, M(B)illionaire Playboy, and no worse than any other of that Class. But he really buffaloed the lot of you with that "I'm just like you and I want to help you" shtick. At least with Obama you thought it might, could, be true. With Trump, there was no effing way.
Agreed, except I never thought Obama's shtick was, might, or could be true either.
I only did because we didn't know him yet. Based on passed pol performance, no one should've expected it from him either, but for the briefest of moments I had Hope that things would Change. More fool me.
I get it. Somewhere in my subconscious, I was probably thinking the same, but at the surface I was skeptical and cynical; I’m from Chicago, I know how it works. His “resume” was/is a pile of superfluities. He works the game just like all the other assholes.
Assertions and opinion. Fine but I disagree
Holy fuck but you slammed that Koolaid like a Jaeger shot. That list you provide as True is anything but, and your assertion lends it no credence.
But, he does and he doesn't. Where's the infrastructure legislation he promised that would be "the best"? Where's the health care policy that was going to be "so much better"? They had control of government, just like the Dems, and what we got was tax breaks and giveaways. He didn't even start doing what he said he was going to do, except to give him and his supporters cover and money. They're the same filth, playing to the same audience, with different play sheets.
That's also what the sheep say about the wolfpack that's about to devour them. "They do what they say they're going to do." The wolves make no bones about what they're going to do.
Presidents and governments are not magic. I’d say grow up but that would be rude
He said he was going to release JFK documents - but then didn't. Grow up. All politicians lie and all government lie.
Bet you do too, strategically. You going to really expect anyone to never lie? I’ve got a nice bridge in Brooklyn that’s a great deal.
For someone who posts a lot, you do not seem to have much information - something you might try is to read more, identify a few points, and identify someone who wants to engage you. I would have been less rude, but it looks like you are word vomiting all over this thread.
Same here. A sleazy opportunist con who found his ultimate mark.
Oh, pulease! Is it that hard to recognize a conman?
Hmmm, you tell us. Did you vote for Obama? The Clintons? Biden? Bernie???
I voted for Obama ONCE - then I saw he was a fake. I voted for Bernie ONCE until he bowed down and capitulated. Of course, comparing that list to Trump is like comparing Al Capone to the local drug dealer.
So you acknowledge that you cannot tell who is (or is not) a con man. That's all that needs to be said.
This kind of BS rhetoric is not worth a reply.
Oh it's easy. Conmen take from you and leave you worse off. The Trump Administration sure didn't do that to me. As I said, I like cheap gas.
Cheap gas? Is that really the standard you apply? Do you really see a direct connection between the standing president and the price of oil?
LOL. It's certainly something I appreciated. You seriously don't see a direct connection between government policy and the price of oil (energy) in general?
This is such a cheap trick argument that it hardly merits a response. Just so others will know to what I am referring, you blithely conflate "standing president" with "government policy" as if they were are the same thing. Oh so clever, aren´t you. BTW - the price of oil is a COMPLICATED THING that NOBODY has a handle on, not even the mighty USA! (see: the 1970s!)
You are bizarrely claiming a president has no impact on government policy.
FWIW, the only ones claiming the price of oil -- or anything -- is "complicated" are scam artists. Supply and demand is not a rather simple concept.
Apparently it is, for a lot of people.
He hates all the corruption that he's not in on. That's not support for Obama or Dems, I despise them, but DJT is not the savior. Not by any stretch.
---He hates all the corruption that he's not in on.--
That claim does not make a bit of sense. How is he richer/better off after presidency than before? He's objectively not as rich and his old crowd shuns him and his family, now.
The ones who like are not those whom the setters of fashion favor.
You are right, though, that Trump is far from perfect and he screwed up. The irony though is his screw-ups come from his apparent trust in the myth i.e. FBI are good guys; military leadership are good guys; federal health authorities best in the world.
He even seemed to think the major media would do what's right if it can down to it.
Compare a Trump press conference with a Biden one.
I've done that. Both are nausea inducing.
The comment makes complete sense. He's a lying horrible business person who stayed afloat through financial shenanigans that ultimately got bailed out by his run as a successful TV huckster. The problem being POTUS, for DJT, is he didn't control all the levers that he's used to controlling. He was a con that found the ultimate mark, but didn't understand there were other players with more leverage. He was in way over his head, and didn't see it. Also, Washington is not real estate, which is riddled with laws that provide cover for sleaze.
--The problem being POTUS, for DJT, is he didn't control all the levers that he's used to controlling. --
Yet, he was still a good president who accomplished a lot.
--but didn't understand there were other players with more leverage.--
Which means? Again, think about it. Are these other players good guys or bad guys? Do they care about the Will of the People? Human rights in general?
Yet, they have more power than our elected officials.
If Trump's only accomplishment is exposing them he is a great man.
I got a rule... If someone truly believes, as you seem to, that DJT was a great POTUS, that is their prerogative. (cue me backing away slowly....)
It is my prerogative and back away slow or fast. I honestly don't care.
Sounds to me like you made up your mind what to see and therefore you do see it
LOL, l respect Trump for what he did and who he is but, bill, c'mon.
Respect Trump for what he did is all I'm asking. Well, and to judge him by the same standards as is done for the rest of our political class. When you do that, he actually looks pretty good.
Yes. But it’ll take decades for the stink of propaganda to clear
When Obama supported TARP (along with McCain) in 2008, that’s when he confirmed himself to be a swamp creature. Prior to that I still had “hope” for him. But not after that moment.
I think it was my frustration with the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld BS Iraq war WMDs etc and I was still young then and thinking there actually could be a candidate come I g from a major political party who wasn’t a swamp creature (front for corporate interests). Yes in hind site I was horribly naive.
THIS!!! This right here is the perennial American viewpoint. The insiders versus the outsiders, Gurri's Border versus the Center.
We love Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. It is always the outsider that can whip those nasty insiders into doing what's right. It used to be that he would shame them with his civic virtue, then we got the Trumpian bluster of put-downs. One day we're going to give up on the peaceful means and demand a Great Leader who actually cracks heads and spills blood to sate our own immaturity and stupidity.
You weren’t alone
The media has done a real job on this country. Putting lipstick on these pigs.
Obama fought seven wars and killed American Citizens with drones.
Not that the anti-war left bothered to notice, but he was one of the worst war mongers we have ever elected.
This. All day long
" To this day, the all-but-mandatory explanation for the Democrats’ 2016 disaster is a combination of racist reaction and Russian interference. Though race certainly played a significant role..."
I know that race is always the Left's go-to answer for anything it doesn't like, but this is just getting silly. The mistake that the Left constantly and continuously makes is that they feel that everyone else already regards racial issues the same way they do, and this is just not the case. And, frankly, it is what is sinking them. In whole or in part, doesn't matter, the fact that not every person sees things this way, and reacts to events differently as they see things through a different lens should have occurred to the Left and Dems by this point, but, sadly, it hasn't.
I suggest a moratorium on using the term unless you can point to a specific action, done by a specific person or persons, to a specific person or persons, due to the perceived color of their skin and no other possible reason. I know, I know, it's a high bar, but the left and all its acolytes need something like this, if for no other reason than it will make them much better thinkers, but also so it won't be a constant thing they look for/makeup, which lessens the impact of real racism.
I agree with Sirota...but what he doesn't say is...."I will vote out the corporate congressional Democrats, even if that means electing Republicans." That's the ONLY message that will change the current Wall Street rigged congressional system.
"The reason you cannot vote your way out under the current system is that there’s a two party system in the United States, and it’s basically the same party with a little ethnic difference between them, but economically it’s the same party and there cannot be any alternative to this monolithic – we’ll call it the Republican Party with Democratic cheerleaders – there cannot be any progress made until you break up the Democratic Party.
"That became apparent not only when they cheated Bernie Sanders out of the nomination four years ago, but this time, when Obama came up and stacked the deck and did everything he could to organize a stab in the back against Sanders. And Bernie Sanders showed himself to be a social democrat. And he said, “Well, I’d rather help my own career by helping the Democratic Party. It’s a gang, but I’d rather be a gang member than take on the gang.”
"And so he’s dropped all of his support for public healthcare. He’s dropped all the social views and he’s joined the Democratic gang. What I would have liked to have seen him do, would be to say, “I will not support the Democratic nominee. I realize that it is awful to have to elect a Republican again, especially a Republican like Donald Trump, but no progress can be made until we remove the current Democratic Party leadership and take it over and make it a labor party. And we cannot do that until they realize that they will lose every single election until they give up and join the rest of the Republican Party.”
https://realprogressives.org/podcast_episode/episode-88-debt-deflation-and-the-neofeudal-empire-with-michael-hudson/#fwdmspPlayer0?catid=0&trackid=0
Your unstated premise is that the means exist for a "Labor Party" of social democrats to replace the entrenched control of the current Democratic Party Establishment status quo at the national level. That's a pipe dream.
It may be possible for such a movement to obtain some limited success at the level of local/municipal/State government; occasionally it happens, the same way that Libertarians occasionally win races at that level. But no one, not even the most charismatic and photogenic candidate(s) with the best assurance of media exposure (we all know the one(s) I'm talking about) is going to mount a takeover of the top ranking hierarchy of the national Democratic Party from the inside.
Bernie was the last hope that this was possible. He didn’t have the fight in him to do it. That’s something no one ever credits DJT for. He has guts
No, Bernie was simply being realistic. He was shut down by the Democratic Party establishment. And now he has acceded to the reality that like so many of the rest of us, he's been cornered into supporting the choice between the Dems and the GOP, based on his assessment of the least worst option.
It wasn't about "guts" for DJT. He had the pre-existing name recognition- not gained as an elected official or government functionary, which is a plus in the current political climate- and the side money for seed capital to mount a campaign. As Taibbi has repeatedly pointed out, Trump obtained more media time from the Dem-leaning media outlets for free than any of his opponents were able to buy! And the template for him to run as an Iconoclastic Outsider was readily available to him; there was- and is- so much free-floating dissatisfaction with the entrenched political class in the public mood that his cheesy demagoguery is an easy sell. Trump is like a convenient vessel into which people can register their discontents, and their fears and hopes. One of his talents is that he can get people to see whatever they want in him. Like you, imagining that DJT is courageous. Trump isn't courageous- he's merely secure in the knowledge that even if he bluffs and loses, so what? He went into the game with a personal fortune of fuck-you money, and knows he will still have that no matter what happens.
Trump is the guy who shows up in Plato’s Republic when democracy goes batshit crazy. Neither of the ruling factions has any remaining public trust or integrity, and Trump shows up to mine the resentment at their expense. He’s not going to fix anything, just break things.
I think your argument is more with David Sirota than it is with Michael Hudson.
That may be the case; I'm not sure whether Sirota thinks that the most viable option for a national "left-liberal, social democracy, working people's party" movement is to mount a viable challenge to the Democratic Party Establishment from the inside.
Based on an assessment of all of the facts of which I'm presently aware, I don't think that's possible. For anyone who doesn't make it past whatever protege or pre-screening process is functionally in place to winnow out challengers to the institutional Democratic Party Establishment, not just "the Squad" and the "progressive wing." Consider the fate of all of the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 who have been not only sidelined like Bernie Sanders- they've been disappeared. No new ideas allowed; no different agenda of political priorities permitted to gain traction.
In my opinion, the most instructive example isn't Bernie Sanders; it's John Delaney of Maryland, a former Democratic Party Congressman (District 6, 2013-2018.) Multimillionaire businessman, businesses that he founded rather than inherited. Roman Catholic church attender ("pro-choice", like Biden.) Finance capitalist, even! Here's his biography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Delaney_(Maryland_politician)
With that CV, you'd think Delaney would be a great fit for an up-and-coming leadership role in the "centrist, mainstream" Democratic Party Establishment. Except that many of Delaney's positions- while significantly less sweepingly ambitious and ideologically driven than Sanders- are still evidently much too "radical" to gain any traction with the Democratic Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_Delaney
Compare Delaney's platform and tax proposals with the Biden "infrastructure"/"climate change"/"human investment" policy- and the Biden administration's "plan" to pay for it, and you'll encounter the difference between an ambitious but practical agenda of ordered priorities vs. an incoherent mess of dangling loose ends, including what appear to me to be ample openings for patronage pork barrels.
Taxes: "To address the national debt, Delaney has proposed several tax-related measures. This includes creating more revenues by closing certain corporate tax loopholes and imposing a "Buffett style" rule on individuals making over $1 million in annual income. It also includes raising the cap on Social Security taxes.[115] Delaney champions a form of the "Buffet rule" should be implemented that incorporates aligning capital gains tax rates with ordinary income tax rates. He argues that a lower capital gains tax is unneeded, an outdated incentive that contributes significantly to structural unfairness in the United States tax code by allowing investors to pay lower rates than workers.[55] However, Delaney advocates for instituting a higher capital gains tax rate for short-term investing, accompanied by very low rates for investors who hold their investments for ten years or more.[6] He believes that these measures would both benefit investment in startups and infrastructure.[6]
To also address the national debt, Delaney proposes rolling back tax cuts Republicans have given to high earners[55] and raising the corporate tax rate to approximately 27%.[55]..."
The Biden administration started out with proposals similar to those of some of Delaney's ideas- proposing a top marginal rate on capital gains that's equivalent to the top tax rate on earned income: 39%. But look what the Democrats of the House did with it, last month: "House Democrats proposed a top 25% federal tax rate on capital gains and dividends. It would apply to single taxpayers with over $400,000 of income and married couples with over $450,000..." https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/15/house-capital-gains-tax-better-for-the-super-rich-than-biden-plan.html
Delaney's proposals on climate change and energy policy:
"In his campaign for president he proposed a $4 trillion climate plan,[60][61] which he declared would be focused on bringing the United States to net-zero emissions by 2025. Delaney's climate plan focuses on a carbon cap and dividend program.[60][62] The six tenants of his plan are a carbon fee and dividend, direct air capture/negative emissions technology, quintupling the budget for renewable energy research, challenge grants, a "Climate Corps", a "Carbon Throughway".[61][62]"
That means a carbon tax with dividend rebate for low-income earners. The Democratic Party Establishment wants nothing to do with that.
Delaney wanted a well-funded but voluntary National Service program linked with college scholarships, and controls on student loan provisions. He does not support lofty (and empty) rhetorical promises of "free college education for all." Consequentially, his ideas aren't even on the table.
And that's what I'm talking about- the platform espoused by Delaney, not the personalist politics of Fearless Leader John Delaney, Hero Of The People.
It isn't just that the Democratic Party Establishment didn't want John Delaney as President; they don't even want to provide a forum for most of the policy proposals in his platform, much less actually enacting them. Although it is worth noting that unlike ideologically predictable Bernie Sanders, John Delaney can't be caricatured as a "socialist." And the programs on Delaney's platform aren't reliant on sweepingly ambitious abstractions supported only by self-indulgent rhetoric; they're well-reasoned and well-scaled, and there's an outline of priorities and how to pay for them. How much influence does John Delaney have in today's Democratic Party? Zilch. How much name recognition has the national news media provided to Delaney? Nada. How much time does the news media spend on discussions of issues of substance rather than symbolism, and on policies rather than personalities? Negligible.
So corporate congressional republicans are somehow better than corporate congressional democrats? The double-fudge brownies are tastier at the republican bake sales?
no, the only message that's going to change the rigged Congressional system is to change the currently rigged ballot system to enable ranked-choice voting. Otherwise, the balance of power between "BOTH kinds of politics!"- the Dems and the GOP- just goes back and forth, like deck chairs sliding around on the Titanic.
But, Bill E., since you're obviously in the business of sticking angel halos on the Republicans ("Teh Party uv Freedom!") and devil horns on the "Wall Street rigged" Democrats, I doubt you'd offer a sincere endorsement of that reform.
I think that it's sufficient that the ranking is limited to a first and second choice- the candidate the individual voter actually thinks is best, and the one they'll settle for. But ranked-choice voting has to be enacted- preferably in every state, if it isn't possible to make that reform with Federal legislation- in order to provide voters with the power to (at minimum) send a message to the entrenched status quo parties that either or both of them could be replaced.
The means for an independent candidate to achieve and build media exposure and fund a campaign with grassroots support already exist, via the Internet (not that success would be effortless); the intractable obstacle is the inability of voters to make any preference known other than by being backed into a corner of one single vote choice- "supporting" the one single candidate they find to be the least worst. It's the difference between "outsider party candidacy" as pipe dream vs. building the leverage for authentic political power. The System doesn't care about your magical thinking symbolism in the voting booth; it cares about outcomes, long-term visibility, popular momentum. There's no way for outsider popular movements to find a way in and stay in without a ranked-choice ballot.
No, ranked-choice is probably the worst thing in elections. In fact, it is what gave SF Chesa Boudin. No one wanted him, he didn't do well in any debate, but people scrawled in his name as a "whatever, I need someone else on the ballet".
No, two competing ideologies need to compete and debate the actual issues, not have either be mollycoddled by the media, and any connections to special interests need to be disclosed and vetted, as everyone has a connection.
Yes, "ranked choice voting" is the political delusion de jour and needs to be flushed.
RCV is the left's (mostly) version of term limits. It doesn't accomplish what they dream it will.
But this is not a reform that's reliant on adherence to ideology!
You could say the same about term limits. Term limits even have a superficial appeal - the idea that we can eradicate politics as a career.
The problem with a democratic system, of any flavor, is you end up with a ruling faction and an opposition one. You can break up either of those into sub-factions with their own labels, but you can't change that one group has power and one does not. Nor can you change the populace which tends to be fickle when it has a choice. RCV just doesn't do anything to change that.
Agreed. Ranked choice is what yielded the disasters of Quan and Schaff in Oakland.
Tell me more about the Golden Age of Municipal Politics that existed before ranked-choice voting came along to ruin everything..
The ranked-choice ballot reform has been in place for how long in Oakland, compared with the previous system? Ten whole years, according to my DDG search...
Now who sounds threatened?
I don't attempt to say anything about what you derogatorily call the "golden age". What I will say is that both Quan and Schaff were less than stellar managers of their civic duties. The ranked system was designed in part to stop runoffs and causing expense. In my mind (and apparently not yours, and you're entitled to your opinion just as I am mine) this was a cure whose result has been less than satisfying.
you sound threatened.
"two competing ideologies need to compete and debate the actual issues"
I don't think debating "actual issues" is to be reduced to some contest between "two competing ideologies"- only two? That's a false choice. I don't think ideology should arbitrate anything, much less ideological loyalty. Ideologies are templates, meant to work as analytical tools. Rigid fealty to a single ideology often means that none of the loyalists can even lay a glove on an "actual issue."
No, it's not a false choice. There have only ever been two ideologies; Progressives and Reactionaries. Everything else is just icing on the cake, minutia if you will.
Let’s talk about welfare; what is the best way to go about it? Means tested welfare as we have now? UBI? Minimum wage increase? Pro-union policy? The state commands the means of production? The corporations are converted to cooperatives? Debt forgiveness? Job guarantee program? Some combination of the above?
Let’s say we go with a UBI, what’s the right way to fund it? Negative income tax? The Yang plan? Land value tax? Carbon tax? Wealth tax? Some combination of all of the above? Create money via the fed and direct deposit into all of our accounts?
Nothing is a simple two sided issue. Two parties cannot possibly represent the potential solution space of any given problem.
This discussion goes nowhere unless we're able to settle on a common definition of terms.
I at least have some vague framework for defining the term "Reactionary"; it's a movement that defines itself on the basis of its opposition to...(this is where the "vague" comes in) whatever it is that it doesn't like.
"Progressive", I don't know what the hell that means any more. Which is to say that I have more clarity than I had when I thought I knew what the term meant, only to find the dictionary definition of "progressive" used and abused in so many different ways and referent to so many different issues that as a rule I no longer even bother with employing the word, either in writing or speech.
I don't view either of those terms as descriptions of a specific ideology, for what that's worth.
Progressive - someone who wants to move society forward, whether it wants to move or not
Reactionary - someone in opposition to that move.
That's it, there is nothing more. All can be folded into that rubric.
I'm not all that fond of counterfactual arguments, but this is a case where I think it's fairly easy to make confident conjectures about previous Presidential elections:
if we had had ranked-choice for Presidential elections in 2000, Al Gore would have won the Presidency.
if we had had it in 1992, George H. W. Bush would have won the presidency.
if we had had it in 2016...I dunno.
But at least some dynamism would have been induced into the election process. And no one would be whining impotently about "spoilers", 20 years later.
(Got a chance to use the past perfect "had had" grammatical construction! I usually go out of my way to avoid it.)
You need to do a lot of heavy lifting to get to Gore winning the 2000 elections if it was rank choice. Show your math.
If the citizenry doesn't care enough to take their local politics seriously, they deserve what they get.
That said: restricting the ranked choices to only two- a first and second ranking- obviates most of the complications and the worst untoward outcomes of a ranked-choice system. Allowing people to register their top two favored candidates is infinitely preferable to being cornered into picking one choice.
As Matt pointed out in the article, given the current ballot structure, all one party has to do is be perceived as a slight improvement over the other in order to provide the illusion that the winners result from "the will of the majority", as if every vote cast was an endorsement in their favor, rather than a desperate attempt to block a victory by a loathed opposition. That's the reality of the status quo ballot system. How can anyone view it as a success?
Hey, here's an idea - stop claiming to have a mandate or to be the will of the majority. Work in the legislative branch from the standpoint that you aren't in command, even if you are the majority. Hell, I'd sooner see us abolish omnibus legislation before we tinker with the voting system. Make all of those legislators actually work on legislation. Radical, huh?
It would really be nice if we stopped acting like a damn parliamentary system where the President is some kind of prime minister. He is supposed to execute the laws Congress passes, that's his job. This would be even more relevant if we broke the party duopoly as it stands.
"Work in the legislative branch from the standpoint that you aren't in command, even if you are the majority." That's a sweet thought. but it ignores the phenomenon of a partisan position demanding the authority to act as if they ARE in command, even though they're the minority.
As for your contention that the US tripartite structure and two-party system has somehow morphed into a quasi-parliamentary system, that's crazy talk. Power has increasingly concentrated in the office of the Chief Executive for decades. Although for what it's worth, a ranked-choice ballot inclines toward reining in political Balkanization as well as de facto voter disenfranchisement, by producing summed majority/minority electoral shifts without the requirement for playing coalition politics with horse-trading negotiations in the aftermath of elections. You don't seem to understand that it works that way.
I don't get how anyone wants to cling to the faux majoritarianism that results from the current status quo, particularly those who continually express their dissatisfaction with both the Republicans and the Democrats,and who complain about a "rigged system." I can only guess- maybe they just prefer having an excuse to bitch impotently? Or to bitch "productively", perhaps, with the tacit understanding that the status quo is undermining democratic ideals that they have no use for anyway. So maybe one day matters will get to the point where democracy is widely viewed as inherently broken and unusable, and a cynical and apathetic populace will offer their assent to a system more to the liking of those who constantly bemoan flaws of the democratic system and frame them as features rather than bugs, to suit their own private ends.
Well Mascot... FDR changed the Democratic Party from within by defeating Al Smith and John Jacob Raskob (former Dupont & GM executive running the Democratic Party)...not only at the 1932 Democratic Convention but in FDR's 1936 re-election campaign. So, it can be done. I've spent 40 years as a Democratic Party activist, elected Illinois state legislator, DNC delegate. We not doing away with Electoral College nor adopting rank choice voting nationwide. We live in a two-party system, and reforming one of those parties is MUCH easier and more practical than dreaming up some non-existent political system.
Don't discard getting rid of winner take all, which would get us closer to electing a president by popular vote, and not involve getting rid of the electoral college. Alot of people including legal scholars think WTA is unconstitutional. However, getting rid of it will take alot of bipartisan organizing, state by state. Just doing that might invigorate the lust for democracy in this country which we seem to have lost.
I see absolutely no real-world evidence for your claims- only evidence to contradict them.
I don't view the answer as a nostalgic quest to find the next FDR. The Democratic Party is unrecognizable by the standards of 1932-1944; that's a good thing in some ways, and bad in other ways. But in any case, the Democrats are not the same institution.
In point of fact, the Democrats are not the same party that they were in 1968, either. Read Kevin Phillips book The Politics of Rich and Poor; the America: What Went Wrong series by Barlett and Steele; Partners in Power, by Roger Morris and Sally Denton; Shadows of Hope, by Sam Smith...history from the last 40 years that will pop your epistemic bubble.
"We live in a two-party system, and reforming one of those parties is MUCH easier and more practical than dreaming up some non-existent political system."
Whoa, whoa, whoa...ranked-choice voting is not some wholesale revamping of the political system; it's a simple ballot reform. Some localities already have it. Maine now has it at the national level. And political leaders in both major parties have stated their support for it; as early on as the 2008 election, both Barack Obama and John McCain were on the record as supporting it, in addition to many other political leaders and well-regarded political and economic thinkers: https://archive3.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting/endorsers-of-ranked-choice-voting/
https://www.fairvote.org/ranked_choice_voting_endorsements#winners_of_nobel_prize
The summed result of ranked-choice voting is majoritarian rule- given the structural conditions of our Constitutional system, that's in both principle and practice much preferable to the outcome of some recent Presidential elections, which afforded a popular majority to neither candidate.
There's nothing about ranked-choice voting that inherently undermines the two-party system, either: I'd anticipate that the most likely result would be that faced with a challenge from outside political movements, the two established parties would respond by adopting some of their positions in order to lessen the appeal of such "insurgencies." And it would be fine with me if that happened, as long as the follow-through was real.
There are several different ways that ranked-choice voting might affect the system. The crucial factor is the ability to induce pressure from the outside- to serve notice on entrenched, insular, stagnant institutions that they need to make room for new ideas or face the penalty of being supplanted by a better alternative. I don't see any drawbacks to that prospect.
I agree, ranked choice voting is a good move, but I also think it can be pushed in conjunction with getting rid of Winner Take All.
Winner take all is about the EC isn't it? You know how that gets changed - by each state deciding to drop it, that's all. California wouldn't do that when it was a reliable red state for president, and it won't do it now as a reliable blue one. It's just not in anyone (but the loser's) interest to change.
Yes you are a curmudgeon and theoretically you are correct about the nature of politics. However, I am an optimist, about doing the right thing and at least trying to achieve the right result. It would be beneficial even if some of the states failed in their effort. Its obviously a long process, but the process does get people involved
in governing and thats whats important.
"When the SS America struck an economic iceberg, the country watched Democrats fill the lifeboats with guilty bank CEOs, then waved from the horizon as everyone else went down with the ship."
Seems applicable for the pandemic as well.