Why I left the Democratic Party

Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2018 06:42 am
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2018 07:09 am

Progress for All founder and law professor Tim Canova is taking another shot at unseating former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who has been embroiled in lawsuits and scandals since the 2016 elections.

This time, however, Canova is not running against Wasserman Schultz in the Democratic primary, but the general election as an independent candidate.

Canova made the announcement last week that he was dumping his party affiliation to run as an independent. In his words, he wasn’t leaving the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left him.

I recently spoke with Tim Canova over the phone. During the 30-minute conversation, we discussed:

His decision to run as an independent;
Accusations from partisans that he is a “spoiler candidate”;
Litigation over ballot destruction by the Broward County Supervisor of Elections;
The need for election and political reform to restore integrity in elections;
The Imran Awan / Pakistani IT scandal;
And more!

Follow IVN

Listen to the full interview above. Also, check out some notable excerpts from the conversation below:

On his decision to run as an independent:

“The local and state [Democratic] parties have certainly shown their favoritism toward Wasserman Schultz over me, and they have shown favoritism toward all of their corporate-owned incumbents over any challengers — particularly progressive challengers.” – Tim Canova

“It reached a tipping point dealing with the ballot destruction from my previous primary against [Wasserman Schultz]. We discovered during the course of litigating in our efforts to inspect the ballots…that the Broward Supervisor of Elections completely destroyed all of the paper ballots while the litigation was pending, and in violation of federal law.


When the party could not be bothered with investigating ballot destruction that has undermined people’s faith and confidence in the integrity of the system, to me it just became intolerable.”

(Local and state Democratic Parties) have shown favoritism toward all of their corporate-owned incumbents over any challengers -- particularly progressive challengers.
Tim Canova, independent candidate for Congress
“The idea that I should stay in as a Democrat and compete in a closed primary at the end of August with all the cards stacked against us, I thought that it had really become untenable, and that the way forward was to be in a general election where we could go for, not just the hardline Democratic party folks who always follow the lead of the leadership, but also going after new Democratic votes…also independents and Republicans and third parties like Greens and Libertarians… ”

On the accusation that he is acting as a “spoiler candidate” to Wasserman Schultz:

“I think Wasserman Schultz herself has been quite the spoiler for the Democrats. She has been the architect of one failure after another. The Democrats who complain the loudest are the ones who have been the most silent about the ballot destruction, and about Wasserman Schultz’s possible affiliations with the Broward Supervisor of Elections and her possible role in all of this.”

“We will be going up against a corporate-funded Democrat and a corporate-funded Republican, and the voters will have a choice — a duopoly which is the same old, same old on the one hand, and a progressive campaign that represents the people [on the other].”

The Otherside Documentary: A Liberal Democrat Explores Conservative America
On how to end the pro-establishment, anti-grassroots culture in the parties — particularly the Democratic Party in this instance:

“It is going to require progressive challengers against incumbent, corporate-funded Democrats all over the country. In lots of parts of the country there are open primaries — like in California. For instance, in the Bay Area, you’ve got Stephen Jaffe, a progressive, running against Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House. That is an open (nonpartisan) primary where the top two finishers (regardless of party) square off against each other, and Jaffe has a good chance I think to be squaring off against Pelosi…

I think it is much more difficult for a progressive challenge to an incumbent in a closed primary state like Florida, where only registered Democrats can vote, and where all the cards are stacked for the incumbent.”

I think Wasserman Schultz herself has been quite the spoiler for the Democrats. She has been the architect of one failure after another.
Tim Canova, independent candidate for Congress
Tim Canova vs. Debbie Wasserman Schultz on election and political reform:

“[Open primaries and the restoration of voting rights for nonviolent felons] are initiatives my campaign has been pushing this whole time, and Wasserman Schultz has been real quiet about. She has actually spoken up in favor of closed primaries. She has spoken up in favor of superdelegates. While she talks about overturning Citizens United, it does seem to be the height of hypocrisy considering how much corporate money she takes through her own political action committees and through super PACs that are spending money on her behalf.”

On the Imran Awan / Pakistani IT scandal:

“It is uncertain what the Awan brothers — what the whole team was doing with the data that was breached. There were reports that Awan was actually accessing that data for many months from Pakistan itself when he was back there. So you wonder if he was working alongside Pakistani intelligence — the ISI. It doesn’t sound like it was a credit card scam. It sounds like it was much more likely that it was an extortion and blackmail racket, perhaps even extorting members of Congress. If so, this is perhaps the biggest breach of security in congressional history, which certainly warrants an investigation.”

“Is this just the swamp where both of these parties wash each other’s dirty hands and dirty laundry? They both have the same corporate backing, after all. Or [are] the Republicans planning on amping up their investigations during the election season?”
0 Replies
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2018 07:31 am
I find this hilarious coming from you. Absolutely. Hilarious.

You frequently disparage those who have different opinions on how to solve different problems nationally, even those on your side of the isle. You can't even find agreement within the Democratic party on many issues. What the hell do you mean that there are only two sets of opinions?

YOU and others like you want every Democratic politician to have your progressive opinions on issues, and no other opinions. You're not interested in hearing why say a $12 minimum wage is better than a $15 one for example. And that's just disagreement on the left, you're sure-as-**** not interested in hearing why a $7 minimum wage (or no minimum wage) is better in some people's opinions.

This quote, coming from you (of all people), is HILARIOUS!!!
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2018 07:48 am
Are you high?
Read again.
0 Replies
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2018 11:04 am
Lash wrote:

You post articles. Are your articles sermons?

Do you show up with righteous indignation, demanding a blueprint to accomplish the contents of other people’s articles?

Does your Angry Clinton Gang have a secret buddy pact to attack Edgar and I when we post articles? I’ve noticed maporsche targeting Edgar like this.

Read it; don’t read it.

When maporsche posts I keep it on ignore and have a policy never to peek.
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2018 12:08 pm
Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
Finn dAbuzz
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2018 03:41 pm
What some [progressives] are suggesting or even doing is pushing/voting for these third party candidates. That’s just idiocy if you’re looking to have any chance of progressing your agenda.

You're being hyperbolic again, not to prove a point, but to reinforce your personal preference for the path to leftwing reform. Supporting a 3rd Party and its candidates is only "idiotic" if your stated goal is to advance your political agenda in the short term

It might be mistaken, but it is not idiotic to conclude that the Democrat Party cannot and/or will not advance the political agenda you support and is so resistant to reform that your effort and resources are better spent on forming an entirely separate political party that is conceived by and dedicated to your favored agenda. Admittedly, this is a long-term play, but sometimes that's the most effective strategy. The Democrat Establishment is counting on your view prevailing among the left wing of the party, and minority voting blocs. They are not losing any sleep over comments like "I'm very unhappy with the Democrats, but I hate Republicans and will never vote for them." In fact, it is thinking like this that allows and perpetuates the behaviors that cause those who can make this statement to be very unhappy with Democrats. As long as you will never vote for a Republican, and you refuse to stay home on Election Day, the Establishment Democrats can run any candidate they please and still count on your vote. Rather than running candidates that better represent your interests and the interests of minority voting blocs, the Establishment Democrats only need to concentrate on registration and GET OUT THE VOTE programs. This takes money and time but it allows them to continue to hand pick the cronies that will run under their banner.

The typical MO is, with their allies in the MSM, to broadcast dire warnings about how Republican incumbents and candidates want to 1) Take your Social Security and Medicare benefits from you, 2) Support the NRA by putting semi-automatic assault rifles in the hands of Neo-Nazis, 3) Prevent people of color from voting and buying McDonald with food stamps, 4) Sell 20% of our nation's Uranium to the Russians (Oh wait, that was Hillary! - I mean't Turn us all into Toxic Avengers by dumping millions of gallons of toxic waste into our lakes and rivers[/b), 5) [b]Push old people in wheelchairs off of cliffs 6) Outlaw the teaching of evolution, 7) Imprison LGBTQRSV folks, 8) Execute women who have abortions, 9) Enslave the poor, and 10) Sodomize your children and grandparents (Good Grief! Did I just confuse the sins of Democrats with the GOP's again?)

The Establishment Democrats have been taking the Black Vote for granted since the 1960's, again, all they want to do is get them to polling places on Election Day, and they'll do whatever it takes to accomplish that task.

They took the votes of union members for granted and lost a big chunk of them in 2016.

They've already begun to take the Gay vote for granted, counting on their transgender focus to vicariously inspire them to vote Blue and they are now taking the left-wing vote for granted, calculating that all voters well left of center will be spellbound by the jargon and theater of full tilt identity politics and hatred of Trump

The one group of people living in America that is getting their full attention and focus is the one that can't vote (at least not legally). If it was hidden before, it is now obvious that their strategy for securing and retaining greater power in the future hinges on illegal immigration. The plan is to keep illegal aliens coming across the border, prevent as many of them as possible from getting deported and them forcing amnesty (Oh sorry, I mean "comprehensive immigration reform") down our throats. How else to explain Sanctuary cities and States that ignore the safety of residents who are citizens to protect even violent criminals from deportation. Officials in small city after small city in California are choosing the safety of their citizens over SB-54 and opting out. This isn't going to rein in Gov Moonbeam and Attorney General Xavier Bacerra (A very dangerous man who recently intimated that he might sue or arrest the Orange County Sheriff for working around SB-54 by publishing the release dates of any and all inmates jailed in the county.)

Regardless of what you or other progressives might think about open borders and accommodating those who have entered our country illegally (even if while here they commit additional crimes), the Democrat Party is all in with this strategy and they're not going to abandon it or redirect resources to other items on your agenda.

Obviously, you and I are not going to agree on the Democrat Party in terms of the propriety and.wisdom of the individual planks of its platform, but ideology need not come into play when assessing what they are up to. Other than the issues chosen as their vehicles to be used in transporting them to privilege, wealth and power, the Democrat Establishment is very similar to its counterpart in the GOP. Neither have any interest in running candidates who are legitimate reformists. There is much not to like about Trump and describing him as a reformist may stick in your craw, but the term applies whether or not you agree with his efforts. Like all politicians, he made a lot of promises during his campaign. Unlike most politicians, he has diligently been working to meet those promises since his election victory. Even if he drains the swamp only to stock it with his own alligators, he will have reformed DC. The GOP Establishment wants no part of that and if you take a look at the ranks of the Never Trumpers and his harshest critics from within the party, you are going to find that what they all have in common is not courage and integrity, but membership in the GOP Establishment. They've all worked very hard to obtain their privileged positions and they're not about to sit back and let a loud-mouthed, outsider waltz in and shake the hell out of their trees.

I agree with you that disaffected Democrats should first follow the model of the Tea Party and attempt to change things from within. It's not easy and any successful reform movement will be a target for infiltration and usurpation but, it will have been comparatively easier than creating a 3rd Party and take a lot less time. However, there is no guarantee it will be successful. Having seen how the Tea Party shook up their brethren in the GOP, Establishment Democrats will not dismiss left-wing reformers out of hand, and they've probably already developed a strategy to combat them. In fact they already deployed defensive tactics during the 2016 Primaries.

If they prove to be more cutthroat or competent than the Republican in repelling reformers, what will you and edgar do? At some point, a 3rd Party may be the only alternative to continuing to accept a corrupt and dishonest party simply because it isn't the GOP. It's worked in the past and I don't buy all the blather (most often spewed by Establishment experts) that times have changed so much since the rise of the Republican Party that the successful formation of a winning 3rd Party is not possible. Obviously, that's just what any established power structure wants a reform minded rank & file to believe.

I’ve often said here hat pushing for as far left of a candidate as you want during the primaries is great and fantastic. But come November if you don’t show up and vote for whomever has the greatest chance of passing your agenda then you’re an idiot.

A vote not cast is a vote wasted, but the same can't be said of a vote cast for a 3rd Party candidate...even if that candidate has absolutely no chance of winning. No 3rd Party is likely to field a winning ticket the first time around. We haven't really seen a true 3rd Party effort in our lifetimes. What we've seen are a number of individuals who for whatever reason decided to run for president and some then created a faux party to wrap around themselves. None lasted. For the effort to succeed, courageous and determined people are going to have to dedicate their lives to the task, and be prepared to never win an election under the new banner. They need to sacrifice the near term for the promise of the future. It's possible, but not without such people, and those who might do nothing more than sacrifice their vote for them. They may all be idiots (especially if the new party is socialist Very Happy ) but it won't be for voting for a 3rd Party candidate.

0 Replies
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2018 01:55 pm
I Don’t Give a Damn about the First (Insert Identity Here) CEO or President
Do you know what literally repulses me these days? Hearing about the first so and so to get accepted into the exclusive club of the aristocracy. Frankly, I don’t give a damn about the latest first black president or first woman CEO. Who cares! I don’t know how we have arrived at this notion where we measure the wellness of humanity not based on the well being of the least among us but based on the accumulation of the the wealthiest among us. This annoyance of mine got revved up to full blown peeve two days ago when I heard a report of how Kamala Harris has a chance to become the first black woman president.

I can’t believe I used to fall for this nonsense! It takes a stupendous level of cognitive dissonance to at once celebrate the fortunes of someone from a specific identity while looking past the vast sea of people from said identity who are stuck in gut wrenching poverty. We pop champagnes for the neo-gentry while disregarding our own tribulations. It’s the most stunning form of logical Ju-Jitsu the establishment has successfully conditioned us to accept; instead of gauging the health of the economy and the vitality of our nation based on the collective whole, we have been hoodwinked to accept the elevation of a few as success for us all.

Diversity has become a scam and nothing more than a corporate bamboozle and a federated scheme that is used to hide the true nature of crony capitalism. We have become a Potemkin society where tokens are put on the stage to represent equality while the vast majority of Americans are enslaved by wages or kneecapped by dependency. The whole of our politics has been turned into an identity driven hustle. On both side of the aisle and at every corner of the social divide are grievance whisperers and demagogues who who keep putting fuel on the fire of tribalism. They use our pains and suffering to make millions only to turn their backs on us the minute they attain riches and status.

Sadly, too many of us keep falling for this breathtaking deception. Liberals swooned for “the first black president” the same way that conservatives fell for our current infantile chief executive. What is true of our politics is true of wider society; at every turn, we keep being inundated with the latest news of the first “black”, woman, Latino, gay, Muslim or transgender to soar to the upper strata of privilege while millions are mired in abject indigence. We are sliced and diced in a million different classifications; the more we are splintered, the easier it is to pit us against each other and make us think that others who struggle just like us are our enemies. All the while, a procession of diverse mannequins are paraded on media and displayed on corporate billboards to represent advancement.

Corporate campaigns and media conditioning keeps presenting a sanitized version of reality, we have become a Potemkin society where tokenism hides injustice.
This is mass-propaganda that Joseph Goebbels would be awed by. A facade of equality and a veneer of freedom paints over the swelling numbers of Americans who have become statistic of unbridled capitalism. In this ongoing economic terrorism that has been unleashed against the bottom 99% of humanity, the victims are just as responsible in perpetuating the crime as the victimizers. Too quick to bow before political idols and worship the rich and famous, we conflate the prosperity of few with progress for the rest of us. Far from defending our economic self-interests, we are now delirious enough to “donate” money to millionaires and billionaires. This is mental slavery on steroids!

This form of tribal affinity is perilous. My native land Ethiopia, and “Africa” as a whole, was shattered and plundered because foreign actors intervened and convinced us to focus on clan above humanity. Fixation on our differences superseded our commonalities; the price we paid for this imprudence is evident. Capital is hoarded by a few while suffering is socialized to the general population. This level of omnipresent greed and strife is not contained to developing nations; the same playbook of slice, colonize and brutalize is happening right here in America and globally. Four billionaires are worth more than 40% of Americans put together, this level of consolidated edacity is what gave birth to the French Revolution.

Alas, instead of saying enough, reclaiming our sovereignty and standing up for our dignity, too many of us keep fawning over stars and going gaga over media personalities. This is the tragedy of humanity, the oppressed have a way of deifying their oppressors. As the plutocracy and their paid puppets in the media-politico complex lead lives of royalty, the rest of us are being grounded into a pulp by economic anxieties.
Tokenism has become our collective sedative; instead of paying attention to the injustices of society, we would rather self-medicate by inhaling the vapors of the affluent only to exhale fumes of misfortunes. CLICK TO TWEET

It took a mean mugging by reality for me to realize this most insidious sham of our governance and corporate totalitarianism that are bleeding humanity. Away from the sterilized diversity of politics and media driven personalities are the harsh realities of shared suffering. There is an alternative diversity that more and more people are being sucked into. Pervasive economic hardship and heart rending injustices are nullifying the hopes and dreams of tens of millions in America and billions globally. This reality traverses the countless constructs and identities that are erected to ghettoize humanity. While the rich are diversifying their portfolios, a diverse body of humanity are being made equal before insolvency.

Think about these things next time mainstream media broadcasts a story about the first so and so to accomplish a tremendous feat. Ask yourself if the fortunes of the 1% is more important than the misfortunes of humanity. But if you insist on waving pompoms for the newest member of the bourgeoisie, that is your right but just know what they eat will not feed you. As for me, I won’t have none of it. I am done celebrating the lavish lives of the well to do; my heart and my attention is focused on the least among us who dwell in adversities. I don’t give a crap about the “first black CEO” or the “first woman president”, I want a world where we witness the last child going to bed at night hungry and replace exclusive wealth with inclusive opportunity. #PotemkinSociety

“The rich rob the poor, and the poor rob one another.” ~ Sojourner Truth
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2018 03:08 pm
Do you agree with this position coming from the perspective of a white male, by chance?

I'm a white male, and I often wonder if I'm disregarding something as unimportant (such as the first black woman president) just because I'm in a class where things like my race or gender have never been used against me.

I guess I'm of the frame of mind that it's not my business to tell someone who thinks being the first black woman president is important, that in fact...it's not important. I'm not that person. We haven't lived the same life. I don't get to tell people what is or is not important to their lives.

I mean, even movies like Black Panther, which featured a really big budget almost all black cast in a summer blockbuster-type movie was seen as being something trans-formative for many black people. Who am I to tell them that it's not?
0 Replies
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2018 07:15 pm
Finn dAbuzz
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2018 07:22 pm
Cynthia Nixon who made a fortune from Corporate Media now wants to be a leftist purist because to do so is not going to jigger her way of life.

0 Replies
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2018 11:14 pm
Excellent op-ed. It's pretty obvious that Obama's presidency did not result in much improvements for black folks. Elect people for who they are and what they want to do, not their race or gender.
0 Replies
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2018 07:03 am
Vote Kucinich

New filing shows Dennis Kucinich took $20,000 from pro-Syrian government group

The ties between Damascus and the candidate for Ohio governor grow even stranger

For months, former U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has been one of the few prominent voices in the U.S. calling for dialogue and understanding with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad — even calling into doubt Assad’s use of chemical weapons. Now, we have a better idea why.

Kucinich, currently running for Ohio governor, has revealed that he received $20,000 from “a group sympathetic to the Syrian government,” Cleveland.com reported Tuesday. New ethics filings show that the Association for Investment in Popular Action Committees, a group tied to the pro-Assad Syria Solidarity Movement, paid Kucinich for 2017 speeches.

The Syria Solidarity Movement’s website is saturated in pro-Assad — and pro-Russia — conspiracies, with posts blaming “corporate media propaganda against Syria,” and describing claims of Russian interference efforts in the U.S. as “completely unproven.” The group also blamed recent chemical attacks on anti-Assad forces, and has a habit of reposting material from Russian propaganda sites.

Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2018 07:22 am
I doubt Assad had anything to do with this recent gassing, too.

Kucinich is popular with progressives, so I’m skeptical of the veracity if this narrative. I will check for his response to this claim.
0 Replies
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2018 07:25 am
Have you seen the crazy twisting Cuomo’s been doing to try to seem progressive??? It’s hilarious. He’s saying he’s ‘undocumented’, too.

A legitimate progressive is the worst nightmare of a fake one.

Nixon is making a huge difference.
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2018 07:34 am
It is a hack attack opinion piece.

“Now we know why...”


A bit more balanced:

An organization that supports Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad paid former Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich $20,000 to speak to its organization last year.

The payment came out as part of the Democrat's financial disclosures since he is running for governor of Ohio. Originally, Kucinich did not list the source of the payments and referred to them as speaking fees without specifying who they came from, the Columbus Dispatch reports. The three speaking fees came to a total of $33,000.

The $20,000 payment came from the Association for Investment in Popular Action Committees, in El Cerrito, California. The speech was at the European Centre for the Study of Extremism in Cambridge, England. Kucinich's travel costs were also handled.

Kucinich has been to Syria several times before and has met Assad. The gubernatorial candidate is against most military actions the U.S. could be involved in and repeatedly attempted to impeach former President George W. Bush for the invasion of Iraq.

Kucinich is in an uphill battle to claim the Democratic nomination for governor. Former CFPB head Richard Cordray is the favorite to lock down the Democratic nomination.

The organization that backed Kucinich's travel and speech called on the U.S. to pay reparations after recent missile strikes on Syrian military targets and has praised Russian President Vladimir Putin for his actions in Syria.



I’ll put Kucinich’s veracity up against any politician.
0 Replies
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2018 08:10 am
The following is a link embedded in the Think Progress piece I posted, in it is the article source for the facts TP stated.

Amended ethics filing shows Dennis Kucinich was paid $20k by pro-Syrian government group
Updated Apr 17; Posted Apr 17

CLEVELAND, Ohio - After initially not disclosing who paid him to give speeches in 2017, former U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich filed an amended ethics disclosure showing he was paid $20,000 by a group sympathetic to the Syrian government.

Syria's President Bashar Assad has been accused by multiple intelligence agencies of using chemical weapons on his own people in the long-running Syrian Civil War.

The revelation comes when Kucinich has been dogged by his connection to Assad, whom he met with in 2017, in the gubernatorial race. Kucinich, a longtime critic of American involvement with foreign conflict, has questioned whether Assad used chemical weapons.

Kucinich's ethics filing shows a payment of $20,000 from the Association for Investment in Popular Action Committees. Paul LaRudee, treasurer for the organization, described the group as an umbrella nonprofit for other nonprofit organizations.

Among those is the Syria Solidarity Movement, which LaRudee said provided funding for Kucinich to attend a conference hosted by the European Centre for the Study of Extremism in London on April 5-6, 2017.

LaRudee described the group as a human rights organization, but the group's website includes multiple posts supportive of the Syrian government.

"Corporate media propaganda against Syria is an avalanche that never seems to end," one of the posts reads. "Government policy and media policy are now melded into a single policy of support for 'the opposition' and unceasing hostility towards 'the regime' and all those who have come to its aid, especially Russia."

The post goes on to describe "hysteria in the U.S. over alleged and completely unproven Russian interference in the U.S. elections" as a reason for U.S. involvement in the region.

The London trip Kucinich took was hosted by the European Centre for the Study of Extremism. The founding director of EuroCSE is Makram Khoury-Machool, who The Telegraph described as a close friend of the last Syrian ambassador to Britain.

Baroness Caroline Cox and Lord Hylton, both Assad sympathizers and members of British Parliament, spoke at the event. Cox and Hylton - like Kucinich - both visited Assad during the Syrian Civil War.

Other speakers, according to a tweet from Kucinich, included Syrian Minister of Tourism Bishr Yazigi and Ali Haider, the Syrian minister for national reconciliation who is under U.S. sanctions.

Kucinich has largely dodged questions about Assad during the gubernatorial campaign, instead saying he wanted to focus on Ohio.

Kucinich has largely dodged questions about Assad during the gubernatorial campaign, instead saying he wanted to focus on Ohio.

The rest, which is a rebuttal from Kucinich, is at Cleveland.com
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2018 09:28 am
Couched in a highly biased narrative... No thanks.
0 Replies
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2018 09:36 am

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Thursday said the US is still looking for “actual evidence” of a chemical weapons attack in Syria, but United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley said the United States has “enough” proof.

“I believe there was a chemical attack and we are looking for the actual evidence,” Mattis told ​a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, adding that he wants inspectors in Syria “probably within the week.”

But Haley said she’s satisfied and urged caution in the US’ response to the chemical weapons attack Saturday in Douma that killed at least 60 people.

“We definitely have enough proof, but now we just have to be thoughtful in our action,” ​she told MSNBC. “The national security team is trying to give him [President Trump] as many options as we can, and we’ll be thoughtful about it and see what happens.”

Before accusing a person of mass murder and risking killing innocent people, you should have “actual proof” instead of being “satisfied” with conjecture or ulterior motive.
0 Replies
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2018 09:58 am
Thought you might want to see this one. Truthdig doesn’t pop up in google searched article topics like they used to.



American politicians on both sides of the aisle love war. On Monday, an In These Times survey found that 92 percent of U.S. Democratic and Independent senators did not mount meaningful opposition to Donald Trump’s April 13 air strikes against the Syrian government. The primary point of contention that Democrats—and most of the partisan Democratic media—leveled were vague legal or constitutional meta-objections that Trump did not have the “authority” or should consult Congress. But the bulk of the “resistance” did not raise meaningful objections to the strikes themselves.

Only a handful of Democrats—Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Christopher Murphy, D-Conn., Edward Markey, D-Mass., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.—opposed the air strikes on substance. The vast majority, instead, relied on process demands that Trump get congressional approval—without saying if the strikes themselves were good or bad.

Process critiques over legality are useful as far as they go, but untethered to normative critiques on the substance of that which is being called to a vote, they amount to little more than busy work, a way of looking anti-Trump without the mess of opposing air strikes that the Democratic establishment—including former presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and her primary messaging apparatus, Center for American Progress—have been backing for years. It amounts to little more than vacuous hall monitor-ism: Bomb away, but make sure you follow the rules.
0 Replies

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/22/2019 at 07:05:45