29
   

Why I left the Democratic Party

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2018 08:13 am
@Lash,
I read that. I was never a fan of JFK. I've never held any real affection for any president, because I never believed they were fully on our side. Ex president Carter is next to sainthood. I do respect and admire him after he retired.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2018 03:00 pm
@Lash,
It really was one of those moments that resulted in everyone remembering where they were when they heard about it.

I was sitting in my 5th-grade class when the Asst Principle came into the classroom and whispered something to our teacher who then told us.

While the administrators decided on whether or not to send us home early, our class talked about what had happened.

I was 10 years old at the time and recall feeling sad and upset, but not devastated. A few kids were crying but I very much doubt that any of them had a deep commitment to JFK and his policies. At least then, POTUS was a very big deal to kids and we had just learned that ours was shot and killed in Texas. It was traumatic for some.

I don't remember much of what any of us actually said except one kid who, with tear-filled eyes, said

"Today is my birthday and I can tell you this is not a very good birthday present."

I eventually wondered if his upset was due more to the fact that he had come to school expecting to be treated special on his Big Day, and the event had taken all the wind out of his sails, or he actually felt grief. Probably something of both. The mind of a 10 or 11-year-old is far from fully formed, and politics was just not something kids ever talked about at school.

There were a few kids who came from big-time Dem or Repub families who would parrot what they heard at the dinner table, but most of us were only concerned about the possibility of the Russians nuking us.

My parents were similar to yours and my mother's reaction was the same as that of your mothers. Seeing that in combination with the TV news and the murder of Oswald troubled me a lot more than the original announcement. Her reaction to RFK's death was even more emotional, but then so was mine 5 years(?) made a big difference.
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2018 03:19 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
but most of us were only concerned about the possibility of the Russians nuking us.


That good ole rankest of the rank US propaganda.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2018 03:37 pm
http://www.flashbax.com/politics/past-presidents.html

Quote:
JOHN KENNEDY

*A philanderer of the highest order. *



Quote:
*LYNDON JOHNSON

*Another philanderer of the highest order. In addition, LBJ was as crude as the day is long. Both JFK and LBJ kept a lot of women in the White House for extramarital affairs, and both had set up “early warning systems” to alert them if/when their wives were nearby. Both Kennedy & Johnson were promiscuous and oversexed men. *



Quote:
*RICHARD & PAT NIXON

*A “moral” man but very odd, weird, paranoid, etc. He had horrible relationship with his family, and in a way, was almost a recluse.*

*She was quiet most of the time.*


Quote:
*SPIRO AGNEW

* Nice, decent man, everyone in the Secret Service was surprised by his downfall. *


Quote:
*GERALD & BETTY FORD

*A true gentlemen who treated the Secret Service with respect and dignity. He had a great sense of humor. *

*She drank a lot!*



Quote:
*JIMMY ("The Saint") CARTER

*A complete phony who would portray one picture of himself to public and very different in private, e..g., would be shown carrying his own luggage, but the suitcases were always empty; he kept the empty ones just for photo ops. Wanted the people to see him as pious and a non-drinker, but he and his family drank alcohol a lot! He had disdain for the Secret Service, and was very irresponsible with the “football” with nuclear codes. He didn’t think it was a big deal and would keep military aides at a great distance. Often did not acknowledge the presence of Secret Service personnel assigned to serve him.*


Quote:

*RONALD & NANCY REAGAN

*The real deal — moral, honest, respectful, and dignified. They treated Secret Service and everyone else with respect and honor. Thanked everyone all the time. He took the time to know everyone on a personal level. * One “favorite” story that has circulated among the Secret Service personnel was an incident early in his Presidency, when he came out of his room with a pistol tucked on his hip. The agent in charge asked: “Why the pistol, Mr. President” He replied, “In case you boys can’t get the job done, I can help.” It was common for him to carry a pistol. When he met with Gorbachev, he had a pistol in his briefcase. Upon learning that Gary Hart was caught with Donna Rice, Reagan said, “Boys will be boys, but boys will not be Presidents.” [He obviously either did not know or forgot JFK's and LBJ's sexcapades!]*

*She was very nice but very protective of the President; and the Secret Service was often caught in the middle. She tried hard to control what the President ate, and he would say to the agent, “Come on, you gotta help me out.” The Reagans drank wine during State dinners and special occasions only; otherwise, they shunned alcohol; the Secret Service could count on one hand the times they were served wine during their “family dinner”. For all the fake bluster of the Carters, the Reagans were the ones who lived life as genuinely moral people.*


Quote:
*GEORGE H. & BARBARA BUSH

*Extremely kind and considerate Always respectful. Took great care in making sure the agents’ comforts were taken care of. They even brought them meals, etc. One time Barbara Bush brought warm clothes to agents standing outside at Kennebunkport; one agent was given a warm hat, and when he tried to nicely say “no thanks” even though he was obviously freezing, President Bush said “Son, don’t argue with the First Lady, put the hat on.” He was the most prompt of the Presidents. He ran the White House like a well-oiled machine.*

*She ruled the house and spoke her mind.*


Quote:
*BILL & HILLARY CLINTON

*Presidency was one giant party. Not trustworthy — he was nice mainly because he wanted everyone to like him, but to him life is just one big game and party. Everyone knows of his sexuality.*

*She is another phony. Her personality would change the instant cameras were near. She hated with open disdain the military and Secret Service. She was another one who felt people were there to serve her. She was always trying to keep tabs on Bill Clinton.* (There's a lot worse in the book)


Quote:
*ALBERT GORE

* An egotistical ass, who was once overheard by his Secret Service detail lecturing his only son that he needed to do better in school or he “would end up like these guys” — pointing to the agents.*


Quote:
*GEORGE W. & LAURA BUSH

*The Secret Service loved him and Laura Bush. He was also the most physically “in shape” who had a very strict workout regimen. The Bushes made sure their entire administrative and household staff understood they were to respect and be considerate of the Secret Service.

*She was one of the nicest First Ladies, if not the nicest; she never had any harsh word to say about anyone.*


Quote:
*KARL ROVE was in fact, though, the guy who was the most caring of the Secret Service in the administration.*


Quote:
*BARACK & MICHELLE OBAMA

*” Clinton all over again” – hates the military and looks down on the Secret Service. He is egotistical and cunning; looks you in the eye and appears to agree with you, but turns around and does the opposite — untrustworthy. He has temper tantrums.*

*She is a complete bitch, who basically hates anybody who is not black; hates the military; and looks at the Secret Service as servants.*


Anyone else see a pattern here?

Treating well people who work for you is just a matter of basic decency.

Treating poorly people who are entrusted with keeping you alive and who are expected to literally take a bullet for you is so stupidly arrogant, it's unfathomable.

These agents saw these people all of the time: In front of and behind the scenes

I would like to see the agents' take on Harry Truman. I have a strong feeling he didn't start the chain.






maporsche
 
  4  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2018 03:46 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
That site seems suspect.... but as a counter to the unnamed secret service members, here is a named SS member about his interactions with the Obamas.

https://www.indy100.com/article/barack-obama-white-house-camera-nice-nasty-personality-secret-service-7731781

Secret Service Agent Jason Wells

Quote:
I will say that, personally, I have differed on many of President Obama's stances in politics. I do not support much of his political agenda.

Quote:
With that stated.... Senator Obama, Mrs. Obama and their two daughters were always extremely cordial and appreciative for everything that we provided them. They were engaging with us, asking us about our families and making sure that we were provided for.

On numerous occasions, Mr. Obama would ask me how my wife was doing (she was pregnant with our first child), and wished her the best. I never, never saw him belittle another person, I never witnessed him do anything behind his wife's back..... For all of my political differences with Barack Obama, I will be the first to say that he is a very decent man.

Please note, that was prior to his time in the Oval Office. I have not interacted with him since then, but everyone who I worked with who was affiliated with him said that he had not changed.
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2018 04:13 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Come off it, Finn, these were men who murdered tens of millions of innocents just to help US business pillage their wealth.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2018 04:54 pm
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/bankruptcy-american-left/
There will be no economic or political justice for the poor, people of color, women or workers within the framework of global, corporate capitalism. Corporate capitalism, which uses identity politics, multiculturalism and racial justice to masquerade as politics, will never halt the rising social inequality, unchecked militarism, evisceration of civil liberties and omnipotence of the organs of security and surveillance. Corporate capitalism cannot be reformed, despite its continually rebranding itself. The longer the self-identified left and liberal class seek to work within a system that the political philosopher Sheldon Wolin calls “inverted totalitarianism,” the more the noose will be tightened around our necks. If we do not rise up to bring government and financial systems under public control—which includes nationalizing banks, the fossil fuel industry and the arms industry—we will continue to be victims.

Corporate capitalism is supranational. It owes no loyalty to any nation-state. It uses the projection of military power by the United States to protect and advance its economic interests but at the same time cannibalizes the U.S., dismantling its democratic institutions, allowing its infrastructure to decay and deindustrializing its factory centers to ship manufacturing abroad to regions where workers are treated as serfs.

Resistance to this global cabal of corporate oligarchs must also be supranational. It must build alliances with workers around the globe. It must defy the liberal institutions, including the Democratic Party, which betray workers. It is this betrayal that has given rise to fascist and protofascist movements in Europe and other countries. Donald Trump would never have been elected but for this betrayal. We will build a global movement powerful enough to bring down corporate capitalism or witness the rise of a new, supranational totalitarianism.

The left, seduced by the culture wars and identity politics, largely ignores the primacy of capitalism and the class struggle. As long as unregulated capitalism reigns supreme, all social, economic, cultural and political change will be cosmetic. Capitalism, at its core, is about the commodification of human beings and the natural world for exploitation and profit. To increase profit, it constantly seeks to reduce the cost of labor and demolish the regulations and laws that protect the common good. But as capitalism ravages the social fabric, it damages, like any parasite, the host that allows it to exist. It unleashes dark, uncontrollable yearnings among an enraged population that threaten capitalism itself.

ADVERTISEMENT


“This is a crisis of global dimensions,” David North, the national chairman of the Socialist Equality Party in the United States, told me when we spoke in New York. “It is a crisis that dominates every element of American politics. The response that we’re seeing, the astonishing changes in the state of the government, in the decay of political life, the astonishingly low level of political and intellectual discourse, is in a certain sense an expression of the bewilderment of the ruling elite to what it’s going through.”

“We can expect a monumental explosion of class struggle in the United States,” he said. “I think this country is a social powder keg. There is an anger that exists over working conditions and social inequality. However [much] they may be confused on many questions, workers in this country have a deep belief in democratic rights. We totally reject the narrative that the working class is racist. I think this has been the narrative pushed by the pseudo-left, middle-class groups who are drunk on identity politics, which have a vested interest in constantly distracting people from the essential class differences that exist in the society. Dividing everyone up on the basis of race, gender, sexual preference fails to address the major problem.”

North argues, correctly, that capitalism by its nature lurches from crisis to crisis. This makes our current predicament similar to past crises.

“All the unanswered questions of the 20th century—the basic problem of the nation-state system, the reactionary character of private ownership with the means of production, corporate power, all of these issues which led to the first and Second world wars—are with us again, and add to that fascism,” he said.

“We live in a global economy, highly interconnected,” North went on. “A globalized process of production, financial system. The ruling class has an international policy. They organize themselves on an international scale. The labor movement has remained organized on a national basis. It has been completely incapable of answering this [ruling-class policy]. Therefore, it falls behind various national protectionist programs. The trade unions support Trump.”

The sociologist Charles Derber, whom I also spoke with in New York, agrees.

“We don’t really have a left because we don’t have conversations about capitalism,” Derber said. “How many times can you turn on a mainstream news like CNN and expect to hear the word ‘capitalism’ discussed? Bernie [Sanders] did one thing. He called himself a democratic socialist, which was a bit transformational simply in terms of rhetoric. He’s saying there’s something other than capitalism that we ought to be talking about.”

“As the [capitalist] system universalizes and becomes more and more intersectional, we need intersectional resistance,” Derber said. “At the end of the 1960s, when I was getting my own political education, the universalizing dimensions of the left, which was growing in the ’60s, fell apart. The women began to feel their issues were not being addressed. They were treated badly by white males, student leaders. Blacks, Panthers, began to feel the whites could not speak for race issues. They developed separate organizations. The upshot was the left lost its universalizing character. It no longer dealt with the intersection of all these issues within the context of a militarized, capitalist, hegemonic American empire. It treated politics as siloed group identity problems. Women had glass ceilings. Same with blacks. Same with gays.”

The loss of this intersectionality was deadly. Instead of focusing on the plight of all of the oppressed, oppressed groups began to seek representation for their own members within capitalist structures.

“Let’s take a modern version of this,” Derber said. “Sheryl Sandberg, the COO of Facebook, she did a third-wave feminism thing. She said ‘lean in.’ It captures this identity politics that has become toxic on the left. What does ‘lean in’ mean? It means women should lean in and go as far as they can in the corporation. They should become, as she has, a major, wealthy executive of a leading corporation. When feminism was turned into that kind of leaning in, it created an identity politics that legitimizes the very system that needs to be critiqued. The early feminists were overtly socialists. As was [Martin Luther] King. But all that got erased.”

“The left became a kind of grab bag of discrete, siloed identity movements,” Derber said. “This is very connected to moral purity. You’re concerned about your advancement within the existing system. You’re competing against others within the existing system. Everyone else has privilege. You’re just concerned about getting your fair share.”

“People in movements are products of the system they’re fighting,” he continued. “We’re all raised in a capitalistic, individualistic, egoistic culture, so it’s not surprising. And it has to be consciously recognized and struggled against. Everybody in movements has been brought up in systems they’re repulsed by. This has created a structural transformation of the left. The left offers no broad critique of the political economy of capitalism. It’s largely an identity-politics party. It focuses on reforms for blacks and women and so forth. But it doesn’t offer a contextual analysis within capitalism.”

Derber, like North, argues that the left’s myopic, siloed politics paved the way for right-wing, nativist, protofascist movements around the globe as well as the ascendancy of Trump.

“When you bring politics down to simply about helping your group get a piece of the pie, you lose that systemic analysis,” he said. “You’re fragmented. You don’t have natural connections or solidarity with other groups. You don’t see the larger systemic context. By saying I want, as a gay person, to fight in the military, in a funny way you’re legitimating the American empire. If you were living in Nazi Germany, would you say I want the right of a gay person to fight in combat with the Nazi soldiers?”

“I don’t want to say we should eliminate all identity politics,” he said. “But any identity politics has to be done within the framework of understanding the larger political economy. That’s been stripped away and erased. Even on the left, you cannot find a deep conversation about capitalism and militarized capitalism. It’s just been erased. That’s why Trump came in. He unified a kind of very powerful right-wing identity politics built around nationalism, militarism and the exceptionalism of the American empire.”

“Identity politics is to a large degree a right-wing discourse,” Derber said. “It focuses on tribalism tied in modern times to nationalism, which is always militaristic. When you break the left into these siloed identity politics, which are not contextualized, you easily get into this dogmatic fundamentalism. The identity politics of the left reproduces the worse sociopathic features of the system as a whole. It’s scary.”

“How much of the left,” he asked, “is reproducing what we are seeing in the society that we’re fighting?”
camlok
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2018 09:24 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
If we do not rise up to bring government and financial systems under public control—which includes nationalizing banks, the fossil fuel industry and the arms industry—we will continue to be victims.


This can't be true, Edgar, because Dishonest Abe said that the US was "government of the people, by the ... "

He wouldn't have lied, would he? That would be just so unlike a US president to lie.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2018 12:54 am
@maporsche,
What's suspicious about the site?

Should be pretty easy to confirm if what was quoted came from the book. I've ordered it. I'll let you know.

Now you have a problem with unnamed sources? You didn't seem to when they had nasty things to say about Trump & Co. Smile

I haven't seen the book yet. Maybe they are named. We'll see.

In any case, while I do have a problem with journalists' increasing overreliance on unnamed sources who have, repeatedly, been shown to have been lying or mistaken, the author isn't reporting on a major story that could have a significant impact on the nation, he's recounting what agents told him. Sure they could be lying, but you have to ask yourself why would so many of them do so.? It's not like any of these guys are still presidents against whom a #Resistance has formed.

I'll also look further into the background of the author and see if there's any reason to believe that he might have an ax to grind like one or more of these presidents accused him of being a fake-writer or if he has personal viewpoints that are diametrically opposed to any of theirs.

I don't necessarily disbelieve Jason Wells as he is quoted, but it's not that impressive that an agent would go on the record with praise for a president. An agent who knocks one might not have a job for long if he did the same.

Hey, maybe the author made up all of the quotes to suit his personal take on the various presidents and their wives. You have to think that's a real possibility since we really have no other evidence what-so-ever that JFK & LBJ were philandering horn-dogs, Regan and W were nice guys, Nixon was weird and paranoid, Ford had a good sense of humor, his wife was an alcoholic, and Al Gore is a jerk.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2018 11:24 am
One of the latest posts at all generalizations are false

http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/exercise-bias-detection/

Quote:

A great exercise to train your bias-detecting skills is to check on a high volume of outlets –say, eight to ten–across the political spectrum in the 6-12 hours right after a big political story breaks. I did this right after the release of the Nunes memo on Friday, Feb 2. This particular story provided an especially good occasion for comparison across sites for several reasons, including:

-It was a big political story, so nearly everyone covered it. It’s easier to compare bias when each source is covering the same story.

-The underlying story is fact-dense, meaning that a lot of stories about it are long:

-As a result, it is easier to tell when an article is omitting facts.

-It is also easier to compare how even highly factual stories (i.e., scores of “1” and “2” on the Veracity and Expression scales) characterize particular facts to create a slight partisan lean.

-There are both long and short stories on the subject. Comparison between longer and shorter stories lets you more easily find facts that are omitted in order to frame the issues one way or another.

-News outlets have had quite a while to prepare for this coming story, so those inclined to spin it one way or the other have had time to develop the spin. Several outlets had multiple fact, analysis, and opinion stories within the 12 hours following the story breaking. You could count the number of stories on each site and rate their bias and get a more complex view of the source’s bias.

I grabbed screenshots of several sources across the spectrum from the evening of Feb. 2 and morning of Feb. 3. These are from the Internet Wayback Machine https://web.archive.org (if you haven’t used it before, it’s a great tool that allows you to see what websites looked like at previous dates and times). Screenshots from the following shots are below:

FoxNews.com

Breitbart.com

NationalReview.com

RedState.com

WashingtonPost.com

NYTimes.com

Huffpost.com

TheDailyBeast.com

Slate.com

BipartisanReport.com



You can get a good sense of bias from taking a look at the headlines, but you can get deeper insight from reading the articles themselves. For some sources, the headlines are a lot more dramatic than the articles themselves; for others, the articles are equally or more biased.


lots more at the link

interesting to watch her process

__

she's also updated the media bias chart based on reader input

http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/chart-3-1-minor-updates-based-constructive-feedback/
camlok
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2018 12:06 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
One of the latest posts at all generalizations are false


You should try this on all the total media bias that occurred on September 11, 2001, then on the 12th, when it got worse, and the 13th, ... when the propaganda reached not epic, just the usual US proportions, which are epic by other countries' standards.

You should try this on the US "evidence" used to support the USGOCT, Beth. There isn't any, as in none, zilch, nada, zero.

You don't even have to get into the technical stuff, the science, which you likely wouldn't understand anyway. Just the fact situations will suffice.

No evidence for the alleged hijackers. Which makes the USGOCT a fable.

Buildings falling at free fall and accelerating speeds. Totally impossible for the USGOCT.

Molten and vaporized pieces of WTC structural steel. Totally impossible for the USGOCT.

Just those two are enough for any sensible human to know that these lies of the USGOCT are the equal of Trump's lies, they are as audacious as Trumps' lies.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2018 07:56 am
Have to consider the bias of the ones making up the lists.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2018 09:27 am
@edgarblythe,
That's why it's useful when people lay out their process so thoroughly.

Gotta say one of my favourite posts there is the one where she talks about CNN. It's quite funny. People want it moved right/left/up/down - and they want it moved a lot.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2018 12:42 pm
@edgarblythe,
I love this Communist call of "Unregulated Capitalism"... The only people who say this are those who don't understand how our govt does indeed regulate capitalism.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2018 12:53 pm
@Baldimo,
It once regulated capitalism, but that all slipped away. Now it's more like the Railroads were at one time.
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2018 02:25 pm
@edgarblythe,
We still have heavy regulation on business. What exactly is unregulated, which mystical business has escaped govt regulation? I can't think of a single thing in the US that isn't regulated at all levels of govt.
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2018 03:22 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
We still have heavy regulation on business.


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ... . See how effective US propaganda is.

CHART: There's No Reason To Believe The US Is Over-Regulated

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-the-myth-of-over-regulation-in-the-us-2012-3
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2018 03:55 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

We still have heavy regulation on business. What exactly is unregulated, which mystical business has escaped govt regulation? I can't think of a single thing in the US that isn't regulated at all levels of govt.

Existing regulation is like a bandaid on a broken arm.
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2018 04:05 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
Existing regulation is like a bandaid on a broken arm.


... supplied by the company who makes them.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2018 04:06 pm
@edgarblythe,
So you are not willing to expand on what you mean? Vague and meaningless pronouncements on "unregulated capitalism"?
 

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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 08:08:43