coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2020 01:58 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
In the first place the only real danger we face from totalitarian authoritarianism comes from the new, emerging Loonie left wing of the Democrat Party.

I said basically the same thing to Frank (the Italian from NJ, forgot his last name) years ago. That is the only direction the policies of progressives can go in. Anyone who cannot see that is totally fooled, cannot think critically, or is just plain stupid.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2020 02:09 pm
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:
Frank (the Italian from NJ, forgot his last name)

https://able2know.org/user/frank_apisa/
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2020 02:16 pm
@coldjoint,
Nonsense. We have a president who thinks he can legally do anything,literally anything, he wants who regularly displays hatred of anyone who thwarts him and gloats about destroying those who oppose him with a completely subservient government half who love him and as he brags would back him if he killed someone in the middle of 5th Avenue. That's where totalitarianism and authoritarianism lie not the left
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2020 02:28 pm
@MontereyJack,
Thus far I've not seen Mr. Trump defy a single court order or judicial ruling.

He is not acting like he is above the law in any way.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2020 02:44 pm
@oralloy,
He blocked witnesses from a coequal brNch if government. That's abice the law in spite of your constant whines to the contrary. And the gop too acted as if they were totally above the law in the same way.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2020 02:45 pm
Is there anything in the universe more predictable than this
Quote:
Post-Acquittal, Clinton Apologized For ‘What I Said And Did.’ Trump Just Did Whatever The Opposite Of That is.
TPM

It's like a horrifying experiment... Let's put a sociopath in the White House and watch what happens.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2020 02:58 pm
@blatham,
I suspect the difference here is that Trump hadn't committed any crime, while Clinton had committed several and violated several Federal rules governing the behavior of senior officials with their subordinate employees.

However I di understand that you presume to know otherwise even though there is no factual basis for it.
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2020 02:58 pm
Interesting take on US elections, one that I've subscribed to for a few years now.

Quote:
Bitecofer, a 42-year-old professor at Christopher Newport University in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia, was little known in the extremely online, extremely male-dominated world of political forecasting until November 2018. That’s when she nailed almost to the number the nature and size of the Democrats’ win in the House, even as other forecasters went wobbly in the race’s final days. Not only that, but she put out her forecast back in July, and then stuck by it while polling shifted throughout the summer and fall.

...

Bitecofer’s theory, when you boil it down, is that modern American elections are rarely shaped by voters changing their minds, but rather by shifts in who decides to vote in the first place. To her critics, she’s an extreme apostle of the old saw that “turnout explains everything,” taking a long victory lap after getting lucky one time. She sees things slightly differently: That the last few elections show that American politics really has changed, and other experts have been slow to process what it means.

If she’s right, it wouldn’t just blow up the conventional wisdom; it would mean that much of the lucrative cottage industry of political experts—the consultants and pollsters and (ahem) the reporters—is superfluous, an army of bit players with little influence over the outcome. Actually, worse than superfluous: That whole industry of experts is generally wrong.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2020 03:29 pm
@engineer,
If she thinks that opposition to Trump has him electorally doomed, does she have an explanation for why opposition to Obama didn't hand him a similar defeat in 2012? Or for why opposition to W did not hand him a similar defeat in 2004?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2020 03:31 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
He blocked witnesses from a coequal branch of government. That's abice the law

No he didn't. He complied with every single order that the courts gave him.


MontereyJack wrote:
in spite of your constant whines to the contrary.

I realize that progressives really don't like facts. But no. Pointing out facts does not count as whining.


MontereyJack wrote:
And the gop too acted as if they were totally above the law in the same way.

The GOP as well has complied with everything that the courts have ordered them to do.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2020 03:54 pm
@georgeob1,
I had a close friend who was in Scientology for many, many years. In fact, the greater part of his adult life. Talking to you is like it was talking to him.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2020 04:06 pm
'A half-dozen women of color have departed Elizabeth Warren’s Nevada campaign in the run-up to the state’s caucuses with complaints of a toxic work environment in which minorities felt tokenized and senior leadership was at loggerheads.

The six staffers have left the roughly 70-person Nevada team since November, during a critical stretch of the race. Three of them said they felt marginalized by the campaign, a situation they said didn’t change or worsened after they took their concerns to their superiors or to human resources staff.'

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/06/elizabeth-warren-campaign-nevada-111595
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2020 04:15 pm
Bernie wins Iowa; polls say he leads NH by about 4%. Joe is no.

Lash
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2020 04:17 pm
@Brand X,
If this was Bernie, it’d headline every network.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2020 04:24 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
If she’s right, it wouldn’t just blow up the conventional wisdom; it would mean that much of the lucrative cottage industry of political experts—the consultants and pollsters and (ahem) the reporters—is superfluous, an army of bit players with little influence over the outcome. Actually, worse than superfluous: That whole industry of experts is generally wrong.
But there's sooooo much money to be made.

It's a great piece. Thanks!
Quote:
But still, the results bore out her theory: For Democrats to win, they need to fire up Democratic-minded voters. The Blue Dogs who tried to narrow the difference between themselves and Trump did worse, overall, than the Stacey Abramses and Beto O’Rourkes, whose progressive ideas and inspirational campaigns drove turnout in their own parties and brought them to the cusp of victory.
This strikes me as exactly right. And the Tea Party phenomenon is the model - constant engagement of a large sector of the population through pushing "liberals are the enemy destroying America" meme. It didn't have to be true at all. It just played on and built up resident notions and emotional responses and did so effectively. It was highly aspirational in terms of negative partisanship.

Of course, Republicans are now playing this game to the hilt. Not merely because they understand it has worked for them previously but also because they grasp that no Republican leader (including Nixon, I think) has engendered such negative sentiments and emotions as this ************ now in office. Republicans, smart one, grasp this. It's a key reason why the next months will be uglier than any we've seen before. And it is THE key reason why the right is working very hard to create dissent and division on the left via broad social media operations.

Quote:
And in a view that goes against years of accepted political wisdom that says the choice of a running mate doesn’t much matter, the key she says, to a 2020 Democratic victory will lie less in who is at the top of the ticket than in who gets chosen as veep. A good ticket-mate would be a person of color like Stacey Abrams or Julián Castro, she suggests, someone who can further ignite Democratic partisans who might otherwise stay home.


This too I think is correct. Abrams is by far my favorite person to fill this role.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2020 04:29 pm
https://inthesetimes.com/article/22286/bernie-sanders-iowa-victory-democratic-socialism-2020

Our man in Vermont is going to rock this world—for the people.

In October 2019, less than three weeks after suffering a heart attack that pundits and opponents seized upon to declare his presidential campaign dead in the water, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) held the largest rally of the 2020 cycle in Queens, New York alongside Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). Following his declaration of “I am back,” Sanders channeled Nelson Mandela in enjoining the crowd of 26,000 that everything, “always seems impossible…until it’s done.”

Sanders’ performance in the Iowa caucuses on Monday—where he maintains the popular vote lead with 71% of precincts reporting—affirms this adage. Throughout the primary campaign, commentators, rivals and establishment politicos across the spectrum have written off Sanders’ candidacy, treating it as an afterthought—or, more recently, as an annoyance to swat away. Despite the Iowa Democratic Party’s bungled reporting of caucus results, which show Pete Buttigieg narrowly leading in state delegate equivalents, Sanders is currently on top by over 1,300 votes. By leading with the most votes in the first contest of 2020, Sanders has proven the commentariat wrong.

The outcome reshapes the primary race, where Joe Biden—long assumed the most “electable” candidate among Democrats—is now coming in a measly fourth. Sanders, meanwhile, is on track to take New Hampshire next week, where a win would establish him as the clear frontrunner. But the results also realize an axiom that many on the American Left have long believed, but has now been demonstrated: Democratic socialism can, in fact, win.

Countless hands have been wrung by paid consultants and strategists over the false fear that the mantle of socialism will sink any candidate seeking the highest office in the land. Just last week, New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait warned that nominating Sanders would be “an act of insanity,” in large part because of the senator’s identification as a democratic socialist. Aside from the fact that Chait has been wrong about nearly everything in recent political history, including his archetypal 2016 take “Why Liberals Should Support a Trump Republican Nomination,” this liberal panic is simply unfounded.

By claiming the most votes in Iowa—a rural, Midwestern state—Sanders has shown that fears over a Scarlet S have been largely overblown. In reality, the democratic socialist agenda that undergirds Sanders’ political philosophy—free and universal healthcare, taxing the rich, canceling debt, ending wars, expanding workplace democracy and investing in a livable future for the planet—is incredibly popular.

The pundits are already waving their arms, warning that Sanders is uniquely vulnerable to a Red Scare-style takedown because of his political beliefs. On Monday morning, MSNBC host Chris Matthews compared Sanders’ campaign to George McGovern’s failed 1972 presidential bid, saying the Democratic frontrunner reminds him of “some old guy with some old literature from this socialist party or that,” as if Sanders was more akin to a leafleter for the Revolutionary Communist Party than a U.S. senator first elected to Congress 30 years ago.

Meanwhile, at the Atlantic, neocon David Frum proclaims that “Bernie can’t win,” referring to him as “a Marxist of the old school of dialectical materialism, from the land that time forgot.” And Matt Bennett and Lanae Erickson, hucksters for the Wall Street-funded, Democratic centrist think tank Third Way, write in USA Today that Sanders’ socialist ideas are “toxic,” cautioning that “Democrats must not be fooled by him now.”

Even Biden himself, reeling from a disastrous finish in Iowa, is joining in on the swipes. On Wednesday, Biden said: “If Sen. Sanders is the nominee for the party… every Democrat will have to carry the label Sen. Sanders has chosen for himself. He calls him—and I don’t criticize him—he calls himself a democratic socialist. Well, we're already seeing what Donald Trump is going to do with that.”

Such admonition is understandable coming from a political and media establishment that views Sanders’ redistributive platform with scorn: Their concern over “electability” really just masks their ideological opposition to Bernie Sanders’ political project. But that doesn’t make their claims correct.

Majorities of young people, women and Democrats all now say they prefer socialism over capitalism. And survey results from Data for Progress show that in a general election matchup, Sanders’ identification as a socialist would not be a liability against Trump. Interestingly, the results indicate that Sanders performs better against Trump when he’s identified as a “socialist” and the president as a “billionaire,” versus Democrat and Republican, respectively. As Vox concludes from the study, “tagging Sanders as a socialist did not seem to undermine his campaign.”

University of California political scientist Gabriel Lenz’s research has shown that, in general, voters “adopt their preferred party’s or candidate’s position as their own.” As a result, voters are less likely to be turned off by a candidate identifying as “socialist” if they generally agree with or approve of that candidate.

Sanders is the most popular hopeful in the race and is the most trusted on the issues most important to Democratic voters. And Sanders is reliably beating Trump in polls both nationally and in battleground states across the country.

Rather than serving as a hindrance, Sanders’ political philosophy could actually benefit him in the country’s heartland. Chicago City Council member Carlos-Ramirez-Rosa, himself an outspoken democratic socialist, writes in NBC News that “Far from being allergic to socialism and class struggle… the Midwest has always been a region steeped in it—even leading the way.”

By positioning himself as a candidate of and for the working class, Sanders has won the backing of low-wage workers and young people of color—constituencies that will be key to winning the White House in November. In many ways, Trump’s perfect foil is Bernie Sanders: the son of an immigrant family who grew up poor, has been consistent in his political beliefs his entire life and has made workers the center of his campaign—and billionaires like Trump the enemy.

The threat Sanders poses to Trump has been raised by none other than Trump himself. Leaked audio from a 2018 phone call showed Trump expressing relief that Hillary Clinton chose Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) rather than Sanders for her vice presidential nominee in 2016. “Had she picked Bernie Sanders it would've been tougher. He's the only one I didn't want her to pick,” Trump said. “Because [Sanders'] a big trade guy. You know he basically says we're getting screwed on trade. And he's right.

So, if Sanders does indeed have a real shot at beating Trump, why are so many in the Democratic brass sounding alarms over his rise? It could have something to do with the fact that Sanders has made the corporate wing of the Democratic Party his foe ever since he launched his first presidential campaign in 2015. In June 2019, Third Way president Jon Cowan called Sanders an “existential threat to the future of the Democratic Party.” More recently, centrist guru Rahm Emanuel said on ABC’s This Week, “The fact is one of the threats to the party right now is a rupture in the core.”

A rupture in the core of the corporate-centric Democratic Party establishment that Emanuel represents is exactly what a Sanders presidency promises. Which is the reason moderates like John Kerry are opening the door to jumping in the race to stop Sanders if his momentum continues to grow. Such gambits give the lie to the idea that party insiders are interested in representing the democratic will of the people. Instead, they want to protect the neoliberal consensus that’s dominated the party for the past 40 years—and which Sanders’ campaign threatens.

Donald Trump has already laid out his strategy for the coming general election. “A vote for any Democrat in 2020 is a vote for the rise of radical socialism and the destruction of the American dream,” Trump said at a rally in June 2019. And in Tuesday night’s State of the Union address, Trump proclaimed: “socialism destroys nations, but always remember, freedom unifies the soul.”

Trump is running against socialism, that much is clear. That game plan won’t change whether or not Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee.

But Sanders boasts an asset that no other Democrat running can claim: He knows how to explain—and defend—democratic socialism in a way voters can understand.

At January’s Democratic debate in Des Moines, Iowa, CNN’s Abby Phillip asked Sanders if his description of himself as a democratic socialist would serve as a handicap. Sanders responded: “My democratic socialism says healthcare is a human right. We’re going to raise the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour. We’re going to make public colleges and universities tuition-free. We’re going to have a Green New Deal. That is what democratic socialism is about, and that will win this election.”

In a widely-touted speech last summer, Sanders explained that in contrast to demagogues like Trump who “meld corporatist economics with xenophobia and authoritarianism,” his democratic socialist vision seeks “a higher path, a path of compassion, justice and love.”

Achieving that higher path means rejecting the kind of market fundamentalism that has dominated U.S. politics for decades, pitting working people against each other to fight over scraps while oligarchs grow their fortunes and fortify their political influence. Sanders’ socialism seeks to redistribute not just the wealth of the billionaire class but also its power, injecting more democracy—and, as a result, freedom—into American society.

As political science professor, Corey Robin explains at the New York Times, “The socialist argument against capitalism isn’t that it makes us poor. It’s that it makes us unfree. When my well-being depends upon your whim, when the basic needs of life compel submission to the market and subjugation at work, we live not in freedom but in domination. Socialists want to end that domination: to establish freedom from rule by the boss, from the need to smile for the sake of a sale, from the obligation to sell for the sake of survival.”

Establishing such a system and curtailing the role of unfettered capitalism in governing our lives may seem a Herculean task, even impossible. But after Sanders’ performance in Iowa, it’s possible that this more egalitarian future is firmly within our grasp.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  3  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2020 04:32 pm
@Lash,
The Bern took a little victory lap today...but Trump took a yuge victory lap at the expense of Schiff & Co.

There's still time for the MSM to continue the Bernie takedown redux.
Lash
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2020 04:46 pm
@Brand X,
I agree with everything you said.

Schiff and Co. made it a lot more difficult for the Dem nominee. Pelosi’s SOTU antics alone garnered Trump tens of thousands of votes; the impeachment fiasco, millions.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2020 05:07 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
. That's where totalitarianism and authoritarianism lie not the left

Look a couple of posts back and you will see what I said about people that think( if you want to call it that) like you.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2020 07:54 pm
Great piece by Slate's legal writer Dahlia Lithwick

Quote:
The Law Is for Suckers

... Just as Zirin promised us, Trump has deployed all of his Roy Cohn strategies to show us that the law is for suckers, and that for great men it serves as a nuisance at most, something to be gotten out of with a squadron of well-paid lawyers, by terrorizing opposing parties and witnesses, by lying fluently and repeatedly, and by declaring victory even when you lost. It should not surprise a soul that he would have brought those tactics to bear as a candidate, as president, and as the subject of an impeachment inquiry. The legal arguments he has deployed throughout this process—that he should have “absolute immunity” from investigation; that he could not be removed from office for crimes; and that he could only be impeached for literal crimes, not high crimes and misdemeanors as the Framers intended—were vintage Roy Cohn. As was the argument, as proffered by Alan Dershowitz, that if the president believed his election interference was in the best interest of the republic, it was both not illegal and also not an impeachable offense. The fact that the Senate and the Justice Department helped him evade accountability, or that White House counsel Pat Cipollone and Dershowitz and Ken Starr served as Roy Cohn mini-me’s, should surprise nobody. Nor should the fact that the “trial” was not a trial and the jurors were not jurors or that a nontrivial number of the jurors voted to acquit him while still acknowledging that what he did was the thing he continues to deny having done.

Nobody should be surprised that in the wake of 3,500 lawsuits, Trump will conclude that he is indeed above the law, that the legal regime exists only for suckers, and also that he can repurpose the machinery of law to investigate, harass, and punish the whistleblowers and the witnesses and those who sought to constrain him. At which point the law won’t just be the thing that applies only to losers and suckers, but also the thing that can be used to put down those who sought justice in the first place. And nobody should be surprised that having invited foreign election interference and having been acquitted for doing so, this president will use the formidable power of his Justice Department to manipulate the 2020 election, and to call into question the results of that election in the courts...
 

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 0.1 seconds on 05/27/2024 at 01:39:49