13
   

Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

 
 
PoshSpice
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2023 09:33 am
@Glennn,
A first read of Orwell’s ‘1984’ seems preposterous—‘slavery is freedom,’ and the line about ‘The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.’

Only living now, watching the US, Israel, and this gaslighting behavior around what suddenly constitutes antisemitism can you get the full weight of those ideas.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2023 09:38 am
@Glennn,
Quote:
...you decide to focus on the possibility that antisemitism is raising its ugly head again.

And you decide to ignore the dozens of bomb threats to synagogues around the country. I'd say it's more than a "possibility".

hightor
 
  3  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2023 09:50 am
Biden’s Smart Strategy for Outmaneuvering Bibi

Netanyahu has deftly navigated multiple Democratic presidents. Biden is trying to change that.

Quote:
The fundamental problem for American presidents who have attempted to work with Benjamin Netanyahu is that Benjamin Netanyahu does not care what American presidents think. An exceptional English orator who was raised in Philadelphia, Netanyahu believes that he can outmaneuver and outlast American politicians on their own turf. “I know America,” he said in a private 2001 conversation that later leaked. “America is something that can easily be moved.” This attitude constituted a sharp break; in the past, even hard-line politicians like the maverick general turned premier Ariel Sharon responded to pressure from American presidents.

But during Bill Clinton’s presidency and again during Barack Obama’s, Netanyahu changed the equation. He repeatedly blew off American entreaties on issues including the peace process and Iran, and turned his willingness to stand up to U.S. presidents into an electoral selling point with his base. Faced with this unprecedented recalcitrance, different Democratic administrations tried different tactics for wrangling Bibi. Some attempted to compel his compliance with hard public pressure, only to have Netanyahu wait out a U.S.-imposed settlement freeze, then agitate against the Iran nuclear deal in Congress and the American media. Others attempted to settle disputes privately with Netanyahu, on the assumption that the Israeli leader would respond better if not openly antagonized.

None of this worked and none of it arrested Netanyahu’s drift further to the right. As both vice president and chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden had a front-row seat to these failures. So did his close-knit foreign-policy team, including longtime staffers such as Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan. Recognizing the errors of the past, they have charted a different course aimed at outmaneuvering Netanyahu, seeking to succeed where their predecessors did not. This approach predates the current Gaza conflict, but has reached full expression in the past months. It explains why Biden has full-throatedly supported Israel against Hamas while simultaneously assailing the country’s hard-right governing coalition. And it offers a glimpse at the administration’s intended endgame for the war—and for Netanyahu himself.

In 2015, I visited another country with an ascendant right-wing populist leader: Hungary. Today, the country is essentially aligned with Russia against America and its allies. At the time, its prime minister, Viktor Orbán, was escalating his rhetoric against the European Union and the West. As part of the trip, my group met with officials at the American embassy, who explained their impossible predicament: Whenever Western countries would publicly pressure Orbán on his policies, he would refashion that pressure into electoral support, leaving his critics with no good options. Stay silent and he would win; speak up and he would also win.

Right-wing populists such as Orbán and Netanyahu thrive on posturing against outside antagonists, using external criticism to bolster their bona fides as strongmen who can stand up to the international community. This insight has shaped Biden’s approach to Netanyahu—not by preventing the president from publicly fighting with the prime minister, but by influencing which fights he picks. Simply put, Biden has opted to challenge Netanyahu on issues that splinter his support rather than consolidate it. In practice, this means strategically targeting policies where Netanyahu is on the wrong side of Israeli public opinion and forcing him to choose between his hard-right partners and the rest of the country.

Netanyahu’s disastrous attempt to overhaul the Israeli judiciary offers a case in point. The proposed legislation was drafted by right-wing hard-liners with no opposition input and would have subordinated Israel’s courts to its parliament. The attempted power grab provoked the largest sustained protest movement in Israeli history. Polls repeatedly showed that most Israelis opposed the overhaul and wanted lawmakers to come up with new compromise reforms conceived by consensus. And so that’s precisely what the Biden administration began calling for.

“Hopefully, the prime minister will act in a way that he is going to try to work out some genuine compromise,” Biden told reporters in March. “But that remains to be seen.” In July, he repeated the same point to Netanyahu, then reiterated it to the press: “The focus should be on pulling people together and finding consensus.” As the State Department emphasized at the time, “We believe that fundamental changes should be pursued with the broadest possible base of support.” By placing himself firmly on the side of the Israeli majority, Biden was able to prevent Netanyahu from turning his criticism into an electoral asset. After all, it’s hard to paint someone as anti-Israel, as Netanyahu once did with Obama, when they are expressing the opinion of most Israelis.

Biden understands that Netanyahu’s position is a precarious one. His governing coalition received just 48.4 percent of the vote, and took power only because of a quirk of the Israeli electoral system. The coalition relies on an alliance of unpopular far-right parties to stay afloat, whom Netanyahu must appease to remain in office. Biden has exploited this weakness and repeatedly poked at it. Rather than directly confronting Netanyahu, he has called out his extremist partners and in this way heightened the contradictions within Netanyahu’s coalition, undermining its stability and gradually eroding its support in the polls.

In July, Biden told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria that Netanyahu’s government has “the most extremist members of cabinets that I’ve seen” in Israel, noting that “I go all the way back to Golda Meir.” This past week, at a campaign event hosted by a former chair of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group, Biden went even further, singling out a far-right minister by name. “This is the most conservative government in Israel’s history,” the president said. Itamar “Ben-Gvir and company and the new folks, they don’t want anything remotely approaching a two-state solution.” This was Biden’s approach in action: criticizing Israel during wartime in front of a pro-Israel crowd, and doing so in a way that nonetheless denied Netanyahu any opening. As long as it’s Biden versus Ben-Gvir, rather than Biden versus Bibi, the president holds the upper hand.

Biden has brought the same strategy to bear on the issue of settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, which has accelerated under the cover of Israel’s campaign in Gaza. Netanyahu’s coalition is unable to clamp down on these extremists and their terrorism because it is beholden to these extremists. But most Israelis have no desire to mortgage the security of Israel and its indispensable relationship to the United States in favor of some far-flung hilltop settlers in West Bank regions that few Israelis could locate on a map.

Knowing this, Biden has begun unrolling a series of unilateral measures intended to raise the price of settler violence and pit Netanyahu and his allies against the Israeli public. Earlier this month, the administration announced visa bans on those implicated in settler violence, spurring similar actions by the EU, Britain, and France. “We have underscored to the Israeli government the need to do more to hold accountable extremist settlers who have committed violent attacks against Palestinians in the West Bank,” Blinken said. “As President Biden has repeatedly said, those attacks are unacceptable.” This past week, the U.S. froze the sale of more than 20,000 M16 rifles to Israel over concerns that they might find their way into the hands of violent settlers.

Hamas’s October 7 slaughter has put Biden’s approach to the ultimate test. Like most Israelis, he wants to see Hamas vanquished. And like most Israelis, he does not trust Netanyahu and his far-right allies to do it. This has left the president with few appealing options. Publicly denying Israel support during what it sees as an existential war wouldn’t just go against Biden’s personal values. It would collapse all the credibility he has accrued with the Israeli public through his careful diplomacy during his presidency. And it would give Netanyahu the American antagonist he desperately craves, providing the floundering premier with a lifeline he would use to reunite the right behind him.

To avoid this outcome, Biden has backed Israel’s military campaign, but worked nonstop to shape its contours and limit its fallout on civilians and the rest of the region, tapping into the reservoir of goodwill he has built with the Israeli public. The president has also upped the pressure on Netanyahu by assailing his coalition partners and explicitly calling for a new, more moderate Israeli government. U.S. officials have leaked that they think Netanyahu will not last, and Biden has told the Israeli leader to think about what lessons he’d impart to his successor.

In other words, Biden has once again placed himself on the side of the Israeli majority, in order to undermine Netanyahu and shape the political future of the entire country. It’s one of the biggest bets of his presidency, and when the guns finally fall silent, it could determine the fate of the broader Middle East.
source
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2023 10:11 am
@hightor,
Antisemitism was on the rise in the USA even before the Israel-Hamas conflict:
How antisemitism came roaring back into American life
Quote:
The upsurge began before the war in Gaza and has now accelerated, bringing intense debate over how to define an ancient hatred in modern times — in particular, where robust opposition to Israel or Zionism crosses the line into antisemitism.

A large share of the recent debate has focused on college and university campuses, generating congressional hearings and costing at least one prominent university president her job.

Incidents of hatred aimed at Jews, however, go far beyond campuses. Recent antisemitic acts nationwide include graffiti and vandalism at Jewish stores, restaurants and institutions, shots fired in the vicinity of synagogues and assaults on people wearing yarmulkes, Star of David pendants or other Jewish apparel.

The cumulative impact has had a profound effect on the psychology of the American Jewish community.
... ... ...


Quote:
Country Statistics:

Argentina: Since Oct. 7, there have been around 231 reported antisemitic incidents.

Australia: According to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry there has been a 591% increase in antisemitic incidents since Oct. 7.

Austria: According to the Jewish Community of Vienna, from October 7 to October 19, there were 76 antisemitic incidents since Oct. 7, a 300% increase.

Brazil: According to the CONIB, which tracks antisemitism in Brazil, there have been 467 antisemitic incidents since Oct. 7, a 961% in comparison to the previous year.

France: According to the Minister of Interior, since October 7 there have been over 1800 antisemitic incidents.

Germany: According to RIAS, the NGO which records antisemitic incidents in Germany, from October 7 to November 9, there were 994 incidents – an average of 29 per day – a 320% increase, compared to the rate of incidents in 2022.

Netherlands: According to the Dutch NGO antisemitism monitor, CIDI, from October 7-November 6 there has been an increase of 818% compared to the average 1 month period of the prior 3 years.

South Africa: According to the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, there were 41 antisemitic incidents in the month of October, a significant increase compared to prior years.

UK: According to the Jewish community’s security organization, CST, from since October 7, there have been 2093 antisemitic incidents across the UK, the highest ever total reported to CST across a 68-day period.
ADL

Quote:
Pianist Igor Levit has released a new album as his personal artistic reaction to the October 7 attacks on Israel, and to the current rise in anti-Semitism worldwide.

Igor Levit: new Mendelssohn album reacts to October 7 attacks on Israel and rise in anti-Semitism
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2023 10:57 am
@hightor,
Quote:
And you decide to ignore the dozens of bomb threats to synagogues around the country. I'd say it's more than a "possibility".

Now now, let's not change the focus of complaint here. The complaint isn't about those who are making threats against synagogues. The complaint is about the biden administration's green light to Israel's war crimes against the Palestinians, and then immediately labeling any complaints about it as being pro Hamas, and therefore antisemitism.

Apparently, the biden administration would like to change the definition of war crime to include self defense. But that would be dishonest, wouldn't it?
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2023 11:11 am
@Glennn,
Quote:
The complaint isn't about those who are making threats against synagogues.

So, you know for a fact that those who are making threats against synagogues don't support Hamas?

Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2023 11:25 am
@hightor,
Quote:
. . . immediately labeling any complaints about Israel's war crimes against the Palestinians as being pro Hamas, and therefore antisemitism.


Let's put that in plain terms. Rather than acknowledge Israel's war crimes against the Palestinians, the U.S. focused on antisemitism while continuing their support of that war crime by supplying the perpetrator with the weapons necessary to the completion of that war crime.

That's the point, and it's not debatable. Facts seldom are.
PoshSpice
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2023 11:31 am
They’re whataboutism-ing genocide.

It’s not working.
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2023 11:32 am
@Glennn,
Quote:
. . . immediately labeling any complaints about Israel's war crimes against the Palestinians as being pro Hamas, and therefore antisemitism.

You mean such as saying that Israel has a “moral duty and a strategic imperative” to prioritize the safety of Palestinian civilians in Gaza?
Glennn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2023 01:49 pm
@PoshSpice,
Quote:
They’re whataboutism-ing genocide.

Thaaaank you! That does seem to be their go-to reaction when Israel's war crimes are on full display for the whole world to see, as well as the biden administration's participation.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2023 01:53 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
. . . Israel has a “moral duty and a strategic imperative” to prioritize the safety of Palestinian civilians in Gaza?

You forgot to include their legal duty to not commit war crimes against the Palestinians.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2023 01:55 pm
Trump at rally in Reno last night...
Quote:
"We're going to win four more years in the White House, then after that we'll negotiate. Based on the way I was treated; we're probably entitled to another four after that."
roger
 
  3  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2023 02:50 pm
@blatham,
Ya know, that man ain't real smart.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2023 03:29 pm
@roger,
I wonder if it's even possible that the idiot might actually go too far...

blatham
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2023 06:08 pm
@roger,
Quote:
Ya know, that man ain't real smart.

By which, I gather, you mean that he is saying and doing things which look likely to do critical damage to his goals. That's something we probably won't know for another year or so. Surely Giuliani, Putin, Steven Miller, Steve Bannon and many others are advising Trump to continue as he is and perhaps even to push harder in the direction he's going. Never back down. Always attack. The only thing that matters is conquering your enemies and gaining power. And we know now from their behavior since 2006 that a large number of Republicans will stand by him no matter what the f*ck he does so long as he is owning the libs.

As hightor wonders, might he and his now insane party actually **** in the blue cabinet? (wonderful Swedish idiom for going too far). Let's hope that a good majority of Americans have or will conclude that he/they are now far, far over the edge and pose an existential threat.
roger
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2023 07:53 pm
@blatham,
You could be right. Sadness.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2023 08:04 pm
National Hypochondria

America could be heading for an election where nothing matters.

Quote:
It’s been a stormy Monday on the East Coast, but with all respect to the Carpenters, I happen to like rainy days and Mondays. So I promise that what I am about to say is not the result of the rain or any Monday blues.

Millions of American voters appear to have lost their grip on reality.

I have been thinking (and writing) about the problem of poorly informed citizens for a long time. Low-information voters are a normal part of the political landscape; in the 21st century, democracies face the added danger of disinformation efforts from authoritarians at home and hostile powers overseas.

But America faces an even more fundamental challenge as the 2024 elections approach: For too many voters, nothing seems to matter. And I mean nothing. Donald Trump approvingly quotes Russian President Vladimir Putin and evokes the language of Adolf Hitler, and yet Americans are so accustomed to Trump’s rhetoric at this point that the story gets relegated to page A10 of the Sunday Washington Post. Joe Biden presides over an economic “soft landing” that almost no one thought could happen, and his approval rating drops to 33 percent—below Jimmy Carter’s in the summer of 1980, when American hostages were being held in Iran, and inflation, at more than 14 percent, was well into a second year of double digits. (Inflation is currently 3.1 percent—and likely will go lower.)

My concern here is not that people aren’t taking Trump’s threat seriously enough (even if they aren’t) or that Biden isn’t getting some of the credit he deserves (even if he isn’t). Rather, the political reactions of American voters seem completely detached from anything that’s happened over the past several years, or even from things that are happening right now. We use vibes to talk about all of this: We’re not in an actual recession, just a “vibecession,” where people feel like it’s a recession.

But you can’t solve imaginary recessions with real policies, just as you can’t cure imagined diseases with real medicine. We are experiencing a kind of political and economic hypochondria, where our good test results can’t possibly be true.

Consider, for example, that last month, Americans felt worse about the economy than they did in April 2009. The key word is feel, because by any standard remotely tied to this planet, it is delusional to think that things are worse today than during the meltdown of the Great Recession. As James Surowiecki (a contributing writer for The Atlantic) dryly observed on X about the comparison to 2009, “It’s true that if you ignore the 9% unemployment rate, the financial system melting down, the millions of people being foreclosed on and losing their homes, and the plummeting stock market decimating people's retirements, it was better. But why would you do that?”

For many reasons, people often say things are bad when they’re good. Even during the best times, someone is hurting. But a simple and very human phenomenon, as I wrote a few years ago, is that people can feel reluctant to jinx the good times by acknowledging them. And of course, partisanship makes people change their views of the economy literally overnight. The media, especially, enables the obsession with bad news. Too many stories about good economic reports (especially on television) are tied to the trope that begins: Not everyone is benefiting, however. Here’s a town …

Such stories are in the name of not forgetting the poor, the dispossessed, the left-behind. The reader or viewer of such stories might be moved to say, “There but for the grace of God go I,” but more likely they will reach the conclusion that the good economic news is a fluke and the destitution before them is the ongoing reality.

A much deeper and more stubborn problem, however, is that Americans, for at least 30 years or more, have developed immense expectations and a powerful sense of entitlement because of years of rising living standards. They are hypersensitive to any change or setback that produces a gap between how they live and how they expect to live—a disconnect that is unbridgeable by any politician.

Trump deals with this disconnect by encouraging it. He indulges his base by talking about “carnage” and the collapse of America, about how terrible things are, how much better they were, and how they’ll be good again in a year. Biden and the Democrats, still tethered to reality, gamely respond with data. Hussein Ibish recently wrote in The Atlantic that Biden can win with this approach: “Biden should ask voters Ronald Reagan’s classic question: Are you better off today than you were four years ago? The answer can only be yes.”

But I think Ibish is being too optimistic. In general, reality-based voters would answer yes. But what if the voters say no?

Even in casual conversations, I find myself flummoxed by people who argue, with much conviction, that America is in fact worse off, even if their own situation is better. When I respond by noting that inflation is not going up, say, or that America is at full employment, or that wages are outpacing prices, or that pay is increasing fastest for the lowest-paid workers, none of it matters. Instead, I get a response that is so common I can now see it coming every time: a head shake, a sigh, and then a comment about how everything is just such a mess.

And yet, after all of the hand-wringing about all the mess, people aren’t acting as if they’re living in an economic crisis. As my colleague Annie Lowrey pointed out recently, few people are spending less, no matter how much they carp about inflation; in surveys, she notes, “people say that they are trading down because of cost pressures. But in fact they are spending more than they ever have, even after accounting for higher prices. They’re spending not just on the necessities, but on fun stuff—amusement parks, UberEats.”

Such paradoxes suggest that dumping on the economy has transcended partisanship or the news cycle and is now a fashion, a kind of expected response, a way of identifying ourselves—no matter what we really believe—as a friend of the downtrodden, a reflex that prevents people from saying that they are doing well and the country seems to be doing fine. No one, after all, wants to get yelled at by the local Helen Lovejoy.

For now, I am going to hope that what we’re seeing is the classic problem of lag: The data are good, but people are still thinking about their situation three months ago—you know, back when the 2023 economy was worse than the Great Recession—and that perceptions will catch up. Abraham Lincoln implored citizens in 1838 to rely on “cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason.” But if Americans are now stuck in the mode where nothing but vibes and feelings matter, much more is at risk than one or two elections. No democracy can long survive an electorate whose only guidance is emotion. atlantic
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2023 12:11 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Trump at rally in Reno last night...
Quote:
"We're going to win four more years in the White House, then after that we'll negotiate. Based on the way I was treated; we're probably entitled to another four after that."





AGGGGGGHHHHH, no he's not. Only two terms, if more terms were available, St. Reagan would still be in office. Or St. Bush or St Clinton or hopefully, St Barack Obama............sober up folks.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2023 12:12 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

I wonder if it's even possible that the idiot might actually go too far...





Yuk, yuk, yuk.......hahahahahahaha
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2023 03:32 am
Quote:
Reporters at ProPublica have uncovered yet more news about the right-wing network of wealthy donors who have supported Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas. According to Justin Elliott, Joshua Kaplan, Alex Mierjeski, and Brett Murphy, in January 2000, on a plane flight home from a conservative conference, Thomas complained to Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL) about his salary. He warned that if lawmakers didn’t give Supreme Court justices a pay raise, “one or more justices will leave soon.”

After the trip, Stearns wrote to Thomas that he agreed “it is worth a lot to Americans to have the constitution properly interpreted.” Stearns immediately set out to pass legislation separating the salaries of Supreme Court justices from the rest of the judiciary, and then raising pay for the Supreme Court justices alone. But the top administrative official of the judiciary, L. Ralph Mecham, in June 2000 wrote to then–chief justice William Rehnquist to suggest that this was the wrong approach for this “delicate matter.”

“From a tactical point of view,” Mecham wrote, “it will not take the Democrats and liberals in Congress very long to figure out that the prime beneficiaries who might otherwise leave the court presumably are Justices Thomas and Scalia. The Democrats might be perfectly happy to have them leave and would see little incentive to act on separate legislation devoted solely to Supreme Court justices if the apparent purpose is to keep Justices Scalia and Thomas on the Court. Moreover, the fact that Representative Stearns is a conservative Republican may not help dissuade the Democrats and liberals from this view.”

Mecham distinguished between Republicans he thought of as “liberals,” and those, presumably like himself, Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia, who were pushing “to have the constitution properly interpreted.” By this, he meant those who wanted the concept of “originalism” to undermine the federal government’s regulation of business, provision of a basic social safety net, promotion of infrastructure, and protection of civil rights, principles on which “liberal” Republicans and Democrats agreed.

Although the extremist faction has now captured the Republican Party, as late as 2000 there were enough “liberals” in the Republican Party that members of the extremist faction worried they could not enact their chosen program. So they must have the Supreme Court. Stearns told the ProPublica reporters that Thomas’s “importance as a conservative [as they called themselves] was paramount…. We wanted to make sure he felt comfortable in his job and was being paid properly.”

About this time, wealthy Republican donors began to provide Thomas and his wife Ginni with expensive vacations and gifts. Ginni went to work for the Heritage Foundation, making a salary in the low six figures. Yale law school professor George Priest, who has joined Thomas and billionaire donor Harlan Crow on vacation, says that Crow “views Thomas as a Supreme Court justice as having a limited salary. So he provides benefits for him.”

That is, a Republican billionaire donor “provides benefits” for a Supreme Court justice who voted in favor of—among other things—the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision that reversed campaign finance restrictions in place for over 100 years, permitting corporations and outside groups to spend unlimited funds on elections, and the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision that gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act protecting minority voting rights in the United States.

The determination of wealthy Republicans to control our political system for their own economic benefit is now matched on the other side of the political equation by religious voters hellbent on overthrowing democracy to impose their religious will on the American majority.

After voters in Republican-dominated states have tried to protect the right to abortion in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that recognized the constitutional right to abortion, antiabortion forces are trying to stop voters from having the right to decide the matter. They are trying to prevent voters from signing petitions to put such measures on ballots.

Steven Aden, the chief legal officer of the antiabortion group Americans United for Life, told Alice Miranda Ollstein and Megan Messerly of Politico: “Because we believe that abortion is truly about the right to life of human individuals in the womb, we don’t believe those rights should be subjected to majority vote.”

Breaking faith in democracy has led us to a place where the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination is openly praising dictators, trying to join the United States into a rising global authoritarian movement based in the idea that democracy, with its focus on equal rights, is destroying traditional society by getting rid of patriarchy, racial hierarchies, and heteronormative society. A Fox News poll released over the weekend showed that 3 in 10 Republicans agreed that “things in the U.S. are so far off track that we need a president willing to break some rules and laws to set things right.”

Today, Pope Francis undermined that argument when he said in a landmark ruling that Roman Catholic priests can bless same-sex couples. While this is not the same as the sacrament of heterosexual marriage, the Vatican’s doctrinal office said this is a sign that God welcomes everyone.

Pope Francis has tended to ignore the rise of right-wing extremism in the U.S. church but now appears to be defending his message that the church should be tolerant and welcoming in the face of the growing intersection of religion and authoritarianism. Last month, he relieved from duty Bishop Joseph H. Strickland of Tyler, Texas, who has vocally supported right-wing politics and openly revolted against the Pope’s positions.

There is a strong economic reason to reinforce the idea of democracy, as well. After forty years in which a minority worked to push tax cuts and deregulation with the argument that they would promote investment in the economy, the Biden administration quite deliberately has used the government not to prop up the “supply side,” but rather to bolster the “demand side.” Despite the history that showed such a system worked, economists and pundits warned that Biden’s policies would dump the U.S. into a terrible recession.

The 2023 numbers are in, and they show exactly what the U.S. Treasury under Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen predicted: inflation has dropped significantly, unemployment is at a low 3.7%, the economy grew at an astonishing 4.9% in the last quarter, and the stock and financial markets are at or near all-time highs.

The economic news is tangible proof that a government that serves the majority, rather than a wealthy few, works.

hcr
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 0.28 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 03:04:09