hightor
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2020 10:22 am
@georgeob1,
george0b1 wrote:

The observable fact is that wealthy people and institutions are major contributors to both parties, just as Lash wrote.

Lash wrote:
They are paid by the same ‘wealthy donors’ that pay the GOP.

The second statement reads to me as if the same donors are contributing to both parties. Is that your intended meaning?
revelette3
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2020 10:36 am
@hightor,
Quote:
The second statement reads to me as if the same donors are contributing to both parties. Is that your intended meaning?


Which is the point. Not surprising George missed it. Also doubt Lash can link evidence to back up her statement same donors which contribute such large amounts of cash to democrats contribute the same amount of cash as they do to republicans which make those same donors major contributors to democrats as well.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2020 10:38 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

george0b1 wrote:

The observable fact is that wealthy people and institutions are major contributors to both parties, just as Lash wrote.

Lash wrote:
They are paid by the same ‘wealthy donors’ that pay the GOP.

The second statement reads to me as if the same donors are contributing to both parties. Is that your intended meaning?

Strictly speaking the second statement is ambiguous, but I suspect Lash meant the same class of wealthy donors. From his reply it appears that Blatham interpreted it that way too, and it was to his post that I was responding.

It appears you had some nits for breakfast.
revelette3
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2020 10:41 am
@Lash,
Quote:
The kids hate Pete because he’s an elitist, a liar, a gun-toting war guy, and a racist. But, that’s just what they tell me.


What is your meaning of the word "elitist" and how does it apply to Buttigieg? What do you mean by "gun-toting war guy"? Do you have evidence he is a racist? Or is that just what your kids tell you and you don't necessarily agree with them?
revelette3
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2020 10:43 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Strictly speaking the second statement is ambiguous, but I suspect Lash meant the same class of wealthy donors. From his reply it appears that Blatham interpreted it that way too, and it was to his post that I was responding.


Well, then, strictly speaking, I see nothing wrong with wealthy persons contributing to democrats. Or is wealthy donors who have some sort of connections to the corporations of weapons of war so to speak? If that is so, is there proof of that either? I doubt it.

Personally I don't necessarily think because donors contribute to politicians, they have bought that politician body and soul. Unfortunately I think it is a tribal thing. If a republican president does something some war thing, then most democrat politician will object to it, if it is a democrat, then, republican politician will object to it. As for supporting the military, it is suicide not to on both sides.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2020 10:52 am
@revelette3,
Your second sentence defies understanding. However it does appear from the rest that you agree with Lash.
revelette3
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2020 10:57 am
@georgeob1,
It don't defy understanding. It is fairly simple. There are big corporations connected to the making of war weapons who lobby congress and donate to politicians. Lash is saying that the very same corporations are major donors to both democrats and republicans equally. She would have to show evidence of that statement in order for it to have any validity.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2020 11:40 am
@revelette3,
Most corporations try to cover their bets with political contributions and contribute (though often unequally) to both parties. Corporations "that make war weapons" are not necessarily evil. Would you advocate that the United States disarm in this turbulent world?
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2020 11:51 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
The observable fact is that wealthy people and institutions are major contributors to both parties, just as Lash wrote.
That's not what she said. Go back and-re read. Carefully, this time.

Quote:
You don't really know what she has read or not read
Not a tough task, often. You, for example, have not read Mayer's Dark Money, Hacker and Pierson's Winner-Take-All-Politics, or What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2020 12:08 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Strictly speaking the second statement is ambiguous, but I suspect Lash meant the same class of wealthy donors.

No, it isn't "ambiguous" as written. She didn't say "class". Further, the theme of Lash's posts here is that both parties are the same as each other.... the Dem party is the same as the GOP. Seriously, has anybody missed that? It's obviously a theme that runs through the social media feeds she attends to. Edgar has voiced the same thing. Most of those she quotes here voice it as well.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2020 12:23 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Most corporations try to cover their bets with political contributions and contribute (though often unequally) to both parties.
That is true.

Quote:
Corporations "that make war weapons" are not necessarily evil.
That is true, as far as it goes. But as Eisenhower came to realize, your formula doesn't go far enough. There are real consequences to building businesses that become incredibly prosperous and powerful where products sold have killing people as their purpose or predictable consequence. I recall years ago when I asked you if the war on drugs (as was being done in South/Central America) provided a convenient platform for testing new weapons, communications and logistical systems and you acknowledged, "Yes". And you surely understand why Orange County became a GOP stronghold.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2020 12:25 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
Further, the theme of Lash's posts here is that both parties are the same as each other.... the Dem party is the same as the GOP.

It's the truth though. The only difference between the parties is on the extreme fringes, but then again they still act the same even then, govt control of lives and not supporting Freedom or Liberty. Lash is correct and the only people who don't see it are those who are part of the fringe groups on either side.
BillW
 
  3  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2020 12:33 pm
@blatham,
Not only is tRump a "projectionist" but so be the Republicans for a long, long time. They project their sins on others as if to redeem themselves. But, they are guilty as charged.

Republicans alone created Citizen's United -

“ Money isn't speech and corporations aren't people ”
— David Kairys

To exist in this new money world Dems have reluctantly had to go after the "big money" with the understanding that at the 1st chance possible they will get rid of this unfettered, unconstitutional malady!
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2020 12:40 pm
Quote:
Swamp Fever

Don’t blame Trump for the rise of right-wing conspiracy theories. The GOP helped cultivate them — until they took over.

To explain the impeachment inquiry, the GOP has promulgated a flurry of baseless conspiracy theories about the forces arrayed against President Trump. It has been surreal to hear some of the nation’s most influential elected officials spouting ideas basically concocted from thin air. The House Intelligence Committee’s ranking Republican, Devin Nunes (Calif.), denounces “Ukrainian election meddling in 2016 . . . aimed against the Trump campaign.” The Judiciary Committee’s Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) claims that if Congress could only talk to a certain three Democratic officials, then “every fact of this investigation” would be unearthed. Conservatives online hold that former White House aide Fiona Hill was a mole planted by George Soros.

Of course, no one purveys these theories with as much verve as Trump. The president has suggested that the nation’s first African American president was born abroad (he wasn’t), that the father of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) had a part in JFK’s assassination (he didn’t), that Ukraine rather than Russia was responsible for election interference (it wasn’t), that the Mueller investigation empaneled by his own administration was a Democratic plot against him, that the Clintons orchestrated the prison killing of accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein (who committed suicide, according to an autopsy) and that the Obama administration spied on his campaign, a claim debunked by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s recent report on the FBI’s Russia investigation.

It certainly seems, more than ever, that “the truth itself is on trial,” as Peter Baker recently wrote in the New York Times. Some conservatives say Trump, and Trumpism, represent a new frontier of conspiratorial politics — that the theories are unique to Trump’s sensibilities and peculiar to his paranoid White House. “Our politics seems more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication,” former president George W. Bush said in a 2017 speech. The “main problem” behind the proliferation of political conspiracy theories “is a president who is also a self-invented fabulist,” argued Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson.

But in truth, the stew of “alternative facts” has been simmering for more than half a century on the right fringe. The GOP had endless opportunities across the decades to banish these theories — about scheming bureaucrats, Jews, the Federal Reserve, the United Nations — and its leaders often saw them as absurd. But they were also useful, helping to rally support from an aggrieved government-hating base, so the party’s mandarins allowed them to fester and grow until they spread from the toxic fringe to the mainstream, which they have finally overtaken. It’s no wonder someone who embraced those ideas would become successful; Trump validates notions that his voters have long believed, ideas that the party refused to condemn and failed to repudiate.

Trump, then, isn’t what caused these conspiracy theories. He’s what happens when nobody stands in their way.

The intellectual life of the American right since Sen. Joe McCarthy’s rise to prominence in 1950 can be seen partially as a series of flirtations with conspiracists and a dedicated reluctance to read fringe crackpots out of its ranks. Yes, William F. Buckley Jr.’s National Review attacked John Birch Society founder Robert Welch, who called Dwight Eisenhower a “dedicated, conscious agent of the communist conspiracy,” in an iconic moment of movement history.

But conservative leaders more typically embraced the passion and support of the Birchers at the grass roots. At its 1964 national convention, the GOP rejected a plank condemning the society, along with its conspiratorial beliefs. Birchers such as John Rousselot and John Schmitz served in Congress as Republicans in good standing, while conservative oilman and family patriarch Fred Koch was a founding member of the society. Birchers took active part in Republican election campaigns and ran right-wing bookstores packed with conspiratorial treatises such as John Stormer’s “None Dare Call It Treason” (about Soviet “infiltration of American government”) and Fred Schwarz’s “You Can Trust the Communists (to Be Communists).” They served as members of local school boards and state legislatures. Other Republicans rarely spoke up to debunk the Birch view that fluoride in drinking water was part of a communist plot to cause cancer or control Americans’ minds.

At times, the wild-eyed conspiracism came from the top. Vice President Spiro Agnew delivered speeches identifying a cabal of Washington- and New York-based power brokers who supposedly controlled the news media, whipping up what journalists at the time considered a frenzy of anti-Semitism on the far right. (In 1976, a few years after he’d been indicted on bribery and other charges, Agnew published a novel pushing the anti-Semitic trope that the media’s “Zionist lobby” was controlling America’s foreign policy in the Middle East.)

At other times, understanding that they had to court the conspiracy-minded activists of “the base,” the party’s leaders went out of their way to confer legitimacy on extremists. Take the GOP’s relationship with Christian Coalition leader Pat Robertson, who won four states in the 1988 Republican presidential primary contest. In 1991, Robertson published “The New World Order,” holding that scheming government pooh-bahs were working to set up “world government, a world police force, world courts, world banking and currency, and a world elite in charge of it all.” He even suggested that President George H.W. Bush was complicit in establishing this new world order. Still, Republicans wanted votes and donations from Robertson’s acolytes, so Newt Gingrich, Oliver North, William Bennett, Jack Kemp, Jesse Helms and Dinesh D’Souza all happily spoke at his “Road to Victory” conferences. Sen. Bob Dole, a pillar of the Republican establishment and at the time a presidential candidate, told Robertson’s followers in 1995 that “I am proud to stand up here and say that I’ve been awarded a 100 percent voting record in ’93 and 100 percent in 1994 and 100 percent in 1995” from the Christian Coalition.

During the Clinton years, the crackpot theorizing became harder and harder to distinguish from the Republican Party itself. Conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife sent investigators to Arkansas to dig up dirt on the president’s past, and when they failed, they settled for salacious fabrications that Bill Clinton was part of a drug-smuggling ring. Scaife became what The Post called “a guiding force” behind Speaker Gingrich’s Contract With America and a later generation of tea party activists. The Rev. Jerry Falwell, a leader of the religious right (his son is a big Trump supporter), started selling a $43 videotape that among other charges said Clinton was responsible for the deaths of “countless people.”

Of course, Republican leaders didn’t always or uniformly tolerate gonzo conspiracy theories. Presidential nominee John McCain, for instance, contradicted one of his supporters at a 2008 campaign event, telling her that Barack Obama was not, in fact, “an Arab.” Onetime senator and 1996 presidential hopeful Arlen Specter (Pa.) also stuck up for the truth when he assailed two leading GOP conspiracy theorists, Robertson and Pat Buchanan, as leaders of the “intolerant right.”
Yet over the past seven decades, such voices — pro-fact, pro-science and pro-reason — lost the internal debate over how to treat the tinfoil-hat folks. And such moments of truth-telling by Republicans at all levels have been fleeting and rare.

While the GOP was actively courting allies who propagated conspiracy theories, the Democratic Party took much the opposite tack — mostly rejecting the left-wing theories that surfaced from time to time. Although some research has found a recent uptick in Democratic support for conspiracy theories (a jump caused by a lack of political power), elected Democrats have typically fenced their party off from wild-eyed claims promulgated on the left. They never embraced the theory that the 9/11 attacks were an “inside job” carried out by the Bush administration, for example. During the 2004 presidential primary race, even the most lefty antiwar candidates — Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, Carol Moseley Braun — largely eschewed conspiracy theories that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had gone to war for oil or to enrich their friends in the construction business. The left has its share of anti-vaxxers who believe that vaccines cause autism, yet Democratic officials have battled these lies (some of which Trump himself has promoted).

One reason is that Democrats have been reluctant to use anti-government theories to tear down the things they would prefer to burnish, such as government and international institutions that they believe work for social justice and economic progress. Republicans’ conspiracy theories about powerful secret actors are consistent with their small-government views; it is a shorter leap for conservatives to portray Washington as a swamp where individualism, justice and decency go to die.

Thanks to years of GOP tolerance for surreal thinking on the right, conspiracy theories have moved from the fringe to the center. A 2018 poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that 63 percent of registered voters subscribe to at least one such theory. Some social science research suggests that people who feel alienated from politics are more prone to thinking conspiratorially. Trump capitalized on that climate of suspicion.
It’s easy to see the line from older conspiracy theories to the fact-free claims by Trump supporters today. White House adviser Stephen Miller has drawn anti-immigration rhetoric from white-nationalist publications like the 1973 French novel “The Camp of the Saints,” which envisions hordes of immigrants obliterating Western civilization. Breitbart News has featured anti-immigrant, anti-gay and anti-black theories that could have been found in an earlier generation of far-right publications, including American Opinion and American Mercury.


Perhaps the biggest change of the Trump era is the approach of Republican leaders. In the past, they indulged these theories but never really espoused them. Today, elective officeholders embrace them openly, in the face of explicit counterevidence from the government they purport to run. National security officials have repeatedly warned in recent weeks that Ukraine did not meddle in the 2016 election and that those who repeat the claim are advancing pro-Russian propaganda. Yet most Republican members of Congress now seem to believe this theory. Trump’s racism (calling Mexican immigrants “rapists”; telling four congresswomen of color who are all U.S. citizens to “go back” to their “crime infested” home countries) and anti-Semitism (he thinks Jews are loyal primarily to Israel and motivated mostly by money) align well with old allegations that Jewish bankers and assorted globalists have enriched themselves while inflicting economic havoc on “the people,” as his closing 2016 television ad suggested.

Polarization has also made mainstream American culture hospitable to ideas once relegated to the margins. Voters have grown more tolerant of political leaders’ failings as long as they adhere to the correct ideological positions, opening a space for someone like Trump to win the presidency and then govern with the support of a minority of the electorate. And grass-roots opinion has shifted in favor of conspiracy theories, a pattern that both follows the cues of political leaders and incentivizes those leaders’ abasements. For instance, Twitter equips Trump to instantaneously air any theory, no matter how nutty, to raucous and affirming plaudits. Fox News also capitalizes on this shift to amplify Trumpian claims (“Russia didn’t hack our democracy,” Fox host Tucker Carlson recently parroted). It’s no wonder that, as Gallup found in February, 30 percent of Republicans see Russia in a favorable light. One recent Post survey of attitudes toward 2016 election conspiracy theories found that 26 percent of Americans believed that CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm, invented a story of Russian election meddling in order to hide Ukraine’s efforts to help Hillary Clinton.

Ultimately, Trump was the logical consequence of a posture followed for decades at the top echelons of the conservative movement: The batty screeds are silly, but since they help us, we won’t work zealously to purge them. Trump’s conspiracy-based capture of the GOP has less to do with him and his perspective than with a party that sought and often won the support of people who believe those notions.
WP - Matthew Dallek is a professor at George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management
coldjoint
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2020 12:53 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
Swamp Fever

Oh boy another page of bullshit from the WP. They have demonstrated how devious their reporting is and this is just more unsubstantiated crap. Liberal opinion scraped from the bottom of the garbage again and again until it is believed by pure saturation.
revelette3
 
  3  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2020 01:11 pm
@Baldimo,
https://able2know.org/topic/468987-626#post-6943896

Lash wrote:
Quote:
I think instead of doing all that, I just need to observe pelosi censuring Ilhan, leading the charge to curtail the progressive wing of the party, slow-clapping Trump, and expecting Democrats to rubber stamp war funds.

They are paid by the same ‘wealthy donors’ that pay the GOP.


She is saying because Pelosi expects democrats to approve of war funds and because Pelosi censured IIhan, and because supposedly Pelosi has held the progressive wing down, then democrats must share the same wealthy donors as republicans. Not different wealthy donors, but the very same which makes them republicans as well in her eyes. Well, she needs to put her evidence where her mouth is and prove the democrats in congress right now have the SAME donors as republicans, in large enough amounts to make them as no difference between republicans and "establishment" democrats. Name the donors and list the candidates who share the same donor and the same or as near as makes no difference dollar amounts. Otherwise, it is just an unproven statements meaning nothing.
coldjoint
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2020 01:13 pm
@revelette3,
Quote:
Otherwise, it is just an unproven statements meaning nothing.

That sums up a lot of the information in the posts here.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2020 01:21 pm
@coldjoint,
N.N. wrote:
That sums up a lot of the information in my posts here.
A fault confessed is half redressed.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2020 01:22 pm
@coldjoint,
You haven't provided one specific argument to any of the points raised in the column. You characterize the writing as "just more unsubstantiated crap", yet the author provides factual statements and puts them into historical context. His conclusions are hardly unreasonable and you are apparently unable to counter any of his specific points — which would be the best way of exposing any alleged "bullshit".



revelette3
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2020 01:27 pm
@georgeob1,
No I don't advocate we disarm in this world. But neither should we prolong wars just to continue making profits off of the weapons of war industries. It is way more complex than I can attempt to explain, but both sides have been debating this far better than I could hope to do. Nor do I think all republicans are connected to the war industries and that is the reason they continue to vote for war funds. I know Cheney was, I could look it up to prove it, but Halliburton comes to mind.
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
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 0.11 seconds on 09/19/2024 at 03:45:24