#'we need a strong republican party' 'we need to reach across the aisle' no the fuck we don't those people are nazis

[del3141]

Where I am, these days.

From the article:

"Everyone who voted for Donald Trump and his fascist party must be considered to be, on some level, an unsafe person. The act reveals either a desire for violent predation of the strong upon the weak, to be enacted on levels of racial and religious bigotry and sexual dominance and power and wealth; or else an indifference, or else an ignorance, but in any case the person who has managed to get themselves to such a place cannot be assumed safe, and must in fact be presumed unsafe. Some of these people might learn to become better human beings, and we might hope they will, but first we must recognize that everyone who voted for Donald Trump and Republicans is an unsafe person to all the rest of us, and even to themselves.

It's going to be important to recognize this, so that we can create as much distance as possible between them and those they intend to harm—not because we don't see their humanity (no matter how much they may have degraded it through their desire for or indifference to human suffering), but because we respect the humanity of those they will harm too much to think that their confusion or ignorance or complacency on matters of violent hate and malicious intention makes them safe."

A lot of Very Serious People love to make a lot of Very Serious Hay about how we need to reach across the aisle, have room for both sides of the conversation, all that bullshit. They say we need to avoid becoming an "echo chamber", as if keeping malice out of a community is somehow making it a lesser thing. These people do not care whether you live or die. These people see you as a source of views, clicks, income, or engagement. You are not a person to these Very Serious People, you are background noise.

Find the rotten voices that exist around you and cut them out. They don't belong in anyone's life. Let them die alone.

[animeengineer]

I need folks to understand that Organizing For America, the network that Dems built up to support Obama’s campaign in 2008, was just as lit as Harris’ campaign now. We saw so much that was just like this, and it helped beat McCain/Palin.

Then after Obama was inaugurated, he blew up OFA. It was just gone. Since it was primarily online through a Democratic-controlled website, this was pretty easy. Most supporters only coordinated through OFA, so they had no idea how to form alternative activist networks that were nearly as strong or funded.

He didn’t want a power base existing that would tell him what to do, while saying things like “If you want me to do something, you need to make me.”

Next thing we know, the Tea Party pops into existence and the Republicans nearly sweep the House in 2010. Obama’s efforts to “reach across the aisle” and “take the high road” were for naught. And some rich guy named Trump got big into politics by insinuating that Obama wasn’t really American.

We need Harris to win in 2024, but don’t be surprised by a similar move in 2025, leading to a Republican sweep in 2026 midterms. The pundits will tell you that a “backlash” in the midterms is inevitable. It only is if we keep making the same mistakes.

I swear to god hiring whatever Gen Z they hired to run Kamala HQ is the best decision this campaign has ever made

Listen, they are all giving him absolute HELL and I am so here for it:

As I have said before, is... is this the Democrats actually hitting back hard and immediately, being Hip With The Youths, and ruthlessly pointing out that Trump is indeed, the orangest chickenshit to ever chickenshit? Kamala going "lol no" to his ridiculous Fox fantasy and announcing she will in fact show up on September 10 on ABC and Little Bitch Boy can ask for more debates after that if he dares? I truly do not understand.

[urbtnews]

Presidential Candidate Joseph Collins Jr. Endorses Sharifah Hardie for CA State Senate District 33

Presidential Candidate Joseph Collins Jr. Endorses Sharifah Hardie for CA State Senate District 33. In a surprising turn of events, presidential candidate Joseph Collins Jr. has announced his endorsement of Sharifah Hardie for CA State Senate District 33 which includes 15 cities from Long Beach to Huntington Park. Joseph Collins Jr., a Libertarian, who is running for the highest office in the nation, believes that America needs leaders who will work together to restore the nation and build confidence around the world. Collins recognizes these traits in himself and Hardie, ready to collaborate across party lines for a Republican catalyst in California. Collins Jr., a successful entrepreneur and community leader, has been gaining momentum in his presidential campaign with his message of unity and progress. He believes that Hardie, a business consultant and radio host, shares his vision for a better America and has the skills and experience to make it a reality. Together, they will work towards finding solutions to the issues facing the nation and build a brighter future for all Americans. Joseph Collins Jr. states, "I like folks that want to reach across the aisle for America." In his endorsement, Joseph Collins Jr. stated, "I am proud to endorse Sharifah Hardie for California State Senate District 33. She is a strong, capable leader who will reach across the aisle to find common ground for a better America. Her dedication to her community and her passion for positive impact make her the perfect candidate for this position. I am confident that together, we can bring real change to District 33, to California and the rest of the nation." With this endorsement, Hardie gains a powerful ally. Joseph Collins Jr.'s endorsement draws attention and credibility to her campaign. Demonstrating the backing of a leader dedicated to improving America is what's needed now. The American Thinker (https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/01/patriots_who_are_doing_something_what_are_you_doing.html) also recently acknowledged Hardie as a Patriot actively involved in efforts to save our country. Presidential Candidate Joseph Collins Jr. Endorses Sharifah Hardie for CA State Senate District 33 Collins Jr. and Hardie also would both be the first African-American selected to their respective positions if elected. Joseph Collins Jr. would be the first African-American Libertarian nominee, Sharifah Hardie the first African-American senator for District 33. Approaching the election, Collins Jr. and Hardie remain resolute in fostering positive change, inspiring others to join their cause. For voter registration information visit: https://RegisterToVote.Ca.gov For donations or details about Sharifah Hardie's CA State Senate District 33 campaign, visit www.SharifahHardieForSenate.com. To make your donation and learn more about Joseph Collins Jr. and his presidential campaign, visit www.JosephCollinsJr.com. Together, they are ready to lead America towards a brighter future. Read the full article

[wilwheaton]

If Biden is the nominee, I’ll work tirelessly to elect him and defeat Trump. But we have MUCH better, truly progressive alternatives, who can ALSO defeat Trump. This article makes clear that Biden is the wrong man for the moment, and for the future of the party.

Biden’s image as a kinda-sorta progressive is belied by his rightward drift in the Senate. From entering the Senate in 1973 through January 1987, he averaged the 16th most liberal member of the Senate; from then through January 1999, he averaged that 30th most liberal; and from that till he left the Senate in January 2009, he averaged out as the 38th most liberal member. His DW-Nominate score (based on roll-call voting) shifted 10 percent to the right over this time.

Biden touts his ability to reach across the aisle, and he’s very proud of all the times he’s reached across the aisle. The thing about that is all of those times he reached across the aisle and worked with Republicans, it was on legislation that undermined or obliterated Democratic priorities. Over and over again, he used his vote as a Democrat in the Senate to help the Republicans advance their regressive agenda. That has to matter. He has a record, and he needs to be held accountable for that record. If Democrats decide that his record is acceptable, so be it. We must defeat Trump. But I believe we can do better, be more progressive, work toward a more equal and just world, while we defeat Trump. 

And I know it’s been a long time, but we must not forget that he voted for the Iraq war, something which should never be forgiven or forgotten.

And I know it’s been an even longer time, but he undermined Anita Hill, to help Clarence Thomas get on SCOTUS, where he has been an absolute disaster for human rights, the rights of women and non-whites, the environment, and the rights of workers. Joe Biden could have done the right thing and stopped Clarence Thomas, but he chose the politically expedient route, for some reason caring more about what people who will never vote for him thought, than listening to a woman who risked everything to expose the character of Clarence Thomas, more than he cared about stopping an extremist nominee from shaping the laws of my country for generations.

Over and over again, Biden comes up not as a champion of Democratic values, but as someone who has worked to undermine our values. The fact that he still believes that Trump’s presidency has been an aberration, that for some mystical reason that apparently only Biden can see, people like McConnell and Graham and all the right wing Fascists in the House will suddenly reverse the course they have clearly been on for twenty years, tells me that he is either delusional and didn’t pay attention during the entire 8 years he was vice president, or (more likely, in my opinion) he just doesn’t have strong, Progressive values that reflect the current Democratic base voter’s vision for our nation and world.

Again, if he’s the guy, I’ll work as hard as I’ve ever worked on anything to get him elected, but in the primary, I’m going to do everything I can to ensure we have a better choice, who will defeat Trump, and repair the damage that has been done -- with lots of Democratic help from people like Biden, Clinton, Axelrod, and Manchin -- since Reagan’s all-out assault on government was successfully implemented in the 80s.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): After a midterm election, it’s not unusual for a president to reassess strategy and approach and make appeals to the “middle” or to “reach across the aisle.” But we’re talking about President Trump, who currently doesn’t have a good track record of working with Democrats. So, what evidence do we have that he will try a different approach? And is trying a more bipartisan approach even a good idea?

geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, elections analyst): We’ve been waiting for the fabled “Trump pivot” for, what, two years now? I’m not counting on it happening next year.

sarahf: But his polling numbers aren’t good. It really seems as though he’s only popular in rural parts of the country.

What does that mean for 2020? Doesn’t he have to start to appeal to more groups than his base?

clare.malone (Clare Malone, senior political writer): Well, the short answer is “yes”!

I’m not sure how Trump’s efforts to appeal to more groups will go. He told a group of reporters on Tuesday during a meeting with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer that he will shut down the government if he doesn’t get funding for his border wall. People don’t generally like it when the government shuts down.

sarahf: But on playing hardball on the border wall as a strategy — isn’t it to some extent more important that Trump deliver on that campaign promise to his supporters, regardless of the political fallout?

geoffrey.skelley: Problem is, the border wall idea is unpopular.

So this is a complete play to the base, which Trump arguably already has locked up. If he’s looking to improve his fortunes, pursuing a government shutdown for something that the majority of Americans oppose doesn’t seem wise.

clare.malone: Yeah … I mean not to sound like a joke here, but, man, they really should have taken infrastructure week seriously!

Imagine how popular a bill funding infrastructure projects would actually be. And I’m sure to appease Trump, you could have stuck in some border wall provisions.

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): I don’t think announcing you are excited about a government shutdown is smart.

sarahf: If Trump’s meeting with Schumer and Pelosi is any indication of what is in store, it seems like Trump won’t be trying a new strategy of appealing to the middle anytime soon.

So … to play devil’s advocate for a moment, is not appealing to a common ground a smart move? President Obama tried to compromise with Republicans, but, arguably, that didn’t work out too well for him and the Democratic Party.

clare.malone: I don’t really see the administration making real moves to open up other avenues of policy discussion. It just seems so hammered by other things — staffing issues and deflecting potential campaign finance law violations by the president.

perry: Obama had this vision for working with Republicans in 2011 (after the Democrats lost the House in 2010), and that fell apart. Trump seems to get the polarized nature of our politics better than most people. I think fighting with Pelosi and Schumer is not the worst idea. Just don’t force a government shutdown over the wall.

sarahf: So if Trump shouldn’t be fighting quite so aggressively for the wall, what would be a smarter move for him?

clare.malone: I’m not sure, Sarah, what the right issue for him is. The trade war stuff is fraught, obviously, and there are murmurs from the financial world about a possible financial crisis on the horizon.

perry: The Democrats are saying they want to investigate Trump aggressively. I think he can make that into a pretty compelling argument about Democrats trying to reverse the will of those who voted for him.

clare.malone: He doesn’t have a lot of places to go right now that aren’t divisive. And the White House doesn’t seem to have a lot of will right now to talk about these non-divisive issues.

geoffrey.skelley: Early on in Trump’s administration, Gallup found strong bipartisan support for proposals requiring companies to provide paid family leave for employees after the birth of a child and a plan to spend over $1 trillion on infrastructure. So perhaps those are places to start.

clare.malone: That’s two votes for infrastructure!

An Ivanka Trump resurgence with family leave??

geoffrey.skelley: Yes, that’s my thought too. You could have the first daughter out there pushing a new family leave proposal.

perry: I just don’t think either of those ideas will be accepted by Republicans in the Senate.

That’s part of Trump’s challenge: Any policy ideas he has must be adopted by the GOP-controlled Senate, too. So it’s not just him dealing and finding compromise with the Democrats.

He can’t really move to the left in any meaningful way.

clare.malone: Perry, why do you think infrastructure would be perceived as moving to the left?

perry: Any infrastructure bill that Pelosi would support would also include billions of federal dollars in spending that the House Freedom Caucus and many Senate Republicans won’t be interested in.

clare.malone: But what if you slipped in something for the border wall? Isn’t that a possible scenario?

I guess it’s also the old GOP priorities vs. the new Trump GOP priorities playing out vis-à-vis spending and financing a marquee campaign promise.

geoffrey.skelley: Having the Senate pass an infrastructure bill with money for a border wall would put pressure on Democrats in the House. Trump could then claim that House Democrats were holding up money that would rebuild the country — dare I say, “make America great again”?

But it is definitely tough to see conservative Republicans in the Senate going for it.

perry: I think Trump has two broad choices: On the one hand, he could tone down his rhetoric, hire a very experienced chief of staff, remove his son-in-law and daughter from top administration jobs, and try to become a less divisive figure. He could, say, model himself after Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, who is very popular. On the other hand, he could amplify the country’s current political divisions and make the 2020 election a debate over which party is hated the most.

clare.malone: I feel like I know the answer to this …

sarahf: Same …

perry: I think the second path is easier for him and potentially a political winner.

geoffrey.skelley: Yeah …

clare.malone: So we’ve decided! Compromise is dead!

geoffrey.skelley: It’s the path that Trump is familiar with and therefore more comfortable with.

sarahf: OK, so does that mean any hopes for bipartisan legislation in this Congress are misplaced? I’m thinking of the criminal justice reform bill that a bipartisan group of senators has pushed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to bring up for a vote — an effort that the president has supported.

clare.malone: That bill has had some longer-term bipartisan support, so there’s still some hope, perhaps.

perry: I think small bills like that can pass, but that won’t define Trump and his presidency.

geoffrey.skelley: Yeah, it’s difficult to come off as bipartisan when, theoretically, you sign that into law and then the next minute you’re saying that you are proud to shut down the government.

sarahf: OK, I think it’s safe to say that we all think Trump’s strategy moving forward appears to be more of the same: Democrats are toxic to his agenda. But with special counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, is that really the best strategy to deflect attention?

According to a recent poll, the share of Americans who approve of how Trump is handling the investigation has dropped. (Granted, Mueller’s numbers are down, too).

geoffrey.skelley: If the Mueller investigation really is an existential threat to the president, it makes sense that he would pursue a course to make it as partisan as possible. The House’s new Democratic majority could also help Trump — it gives him a partisan opponent to play off of, rather than just trying to undermine Mueller.

perry: Mueller’s numbers are not great in that poll. Trump has successfully poisoned that probe in the minds of Republicans. As a citizen, I think Trump’s attacks on the news media, law enforcement and other institutions are deeply problematic. But as a person who studies elections, I think attacking these institutions has been very smart politically. Barring Mueller finding some very clear evidence of, say, Trump encouraging the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, I don’t think Republican voters will take Mueller’s findings that seriously.

geoffrey.skelley: Of course, the scandal is not only affecting the president’s strategy, it’s also affecting his ability to hire staff, I’m sure. Want to be the president’s new chief of staff? Prepare to lawyer up.

sarahf: Right, and while appointing different chiefs of staff isn’t unusual (although Trump has moved at a faster pace than his predecessors), it does seem as if the coalition that Trump brought with him to the White House is now gone?

perry: To me, Trump’s biggest threat is not Mueller, but losing in 2020. To win re-election, he needs to get back some suburban voters or increase his margin even more among white people without college degrees — and that should be his sole focus moving forward.

It’s not clear how much Trump cares about policy or has specific goals for the next two years. I could imagine him picking an establishment Republican-type like Mitt Romney as chief of staff. If that person became a major force in the administration and Trump listened to him or her, that would help him win suburban voters.

But Trump could also go the more conservative route and pick Rep. Mark Meadows, one of the leaders of the House Freedom Caucus. It looks as if Meadows even wants the job. And then, of course, Trump could try to win every white voter without a college degree.

clare.malone: Or you could easily imagine him picking a non-entity as chief of staff, someone who bends to Trump’s whims.

perry: And that would be a mistake.

clare.malone: And not really do much to shore up white suburban voters.

perry: I also assume that is what he will do.

sarahf: At this point, doesn’t Trump’s path to electoral victory depend on winning at least some suburban voters?

geoffrey.skelley: Oh absolutely. Trump probably can’t win Michigan or Pennsylvania if he’s losing the suburbs as badly as Republicans did in the midterms, and that sort of performance could make a state like Arizona a battleground, too. Still, midterms are not good predictors of the next presidential election, so the 2018 results are far from determinative. But they are a warning.

perry: Unless he gets to, say, 85 percent with whites who don’t have degrees. (Trump won 64 percent of that group in 2016.) Then he’s OK.

I just think he should probably have a strategy of some kind. When you are considering Nick Ayers, Chris Christie or Mark Meadows to be your chief of staff, it suggests that you really have no strategy. Those people have little in common beyond being Republicans.

I also think he could go the full Stephen Miller route, and that might be a path to victory. Dial up the immigration policy even more and keep coming back to issues that divide people along racial and cultural lines, like the migrant caravan or kneeling by NFL players.

geoffrey.skelley: Demographics aren’t destiny. But if Republicans don’t recover a bit in the suburbs, Trump could have a tough time winning re-election. And I think that’s the danger of an all-in Stephen Miller strategy. It’s a question of diminishing returns — how much more of the non-college-educated white vote can Trump get?

perry: That’s what I don’t know. I’m not sure he hit his limit in 2016.

Maybe.

geoffrey.skelley: Me neither.

clare.malone: So to return to the original premise: What Trump should do, for starters, to increase his chances of winning in 2020 is to make more establishment GOP decisions when it comes to staffing and rhetoric.

But we also don’t think he’ll actually do either of those things.

sarahf: Yeah, I think this conversation has made me realize that looking at Trump’s approval rating isn’t perhaps as telling as we think.

We think it matters because unpopular presidents don’t necessarily get re-elected (see Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush). But maybe just ensuring your opponent is less popular than you is enough.

perry: That’s what I think.

In 2018, Democrats had 435 different candidates (a different candidate in every House race). In 2020, they have to run a single candidate. And my guess is that Trump will try to demonize that person (and maybe succeed).

geoffrey.skelley: Recall that both Trump and Hillary Clinton were very unpopular, and Trump still won. He will want to discredit his eventual Democratic opponent. And his approval rating may not need to be much above 45 percent to win a close, partisan race.

[cadyrocks]

From my understanding, when people talk about the "Radical Center", they're talking about the kind of beltway dweebs who see the climate crisis, the rise of fascism, the destruction of our civil liberties by a deeply corrupted court system, and so much more that is obviously broken, and think, "Yeah, that Bernie Sanders guy is a bit too out there, don't you think? We need to reach across the aisle. Get some moderates who won't upset the status quo up in here."

Which, as far as political strategy goes, is... Better than "let's overthrow democracy and turn back the clock 70 years on civil rights". That's just about the kindest thing I'm ready to say about it.

It seems more to fit the concept of a "Radical centrist", because they tend to base policy around not upsetting the apple-cart. They want to pretend that there are two sane parties (rather than one group of insane fascists and one group of corrupt corporatists, neither of which even seem interested in fixing the ongoing problems) and that both should have influence. Top dems including Nancy Pelosi have talked about how we need a strong republican party, apparently unable or unwilling to acknowledge how fucking crazy that statement is in light of the 2020 election and the January 6th insurrection. That, in my experience, is "Radical Centrism". Radical because, no matter how much they claim they're being sensible and moderate and level-headed, the things they advocate are very literally apocalyptic. We can't afford to dick around with moderation on the climate crisis. We need to be drastically reshaping society to decarbonize, and the longer we draw that process out, the worse things get.

What you're describing is basically just "extremely typical liberal" and is well-served by the democratic party, to the sense they're serving anything other than platitudes. Pretty much everyone mainstream either wants what you want or pretends to.

I know the concept of “the radical center” isn’t really new but I feel it more and more keenly with each passing year.  Except I think “the center” is kind of the wrong way to frame it because it implies that liberalism (which is what most people mean when they say “moderate” or “centrist” these days) is a sort of compromise between progressivism and conservatism.  And I think that’s not really correct. 

I believe in free speech.  Also in free markets, but with government safety nets.  I believe in checks and balances, and in striving to create an equality of opportunity rather than an absolute equality of outcomes.  I believe in empiricism and reason.

These values aren’t a default or an accident.  They’re not a compromise between two opposite extremes, nor are they just an attempt to make nice and preserve the status quo…since, more and more, this is not the status quo.  They’re what I actually believe in.

Having to consistently defend these values from attacks on all sides has just made it clearer to me that there’s nothing milquetoast or status-quo about it.

[baseballlibertarian]

An Interview With David Plouffe, Campaign Manager for Barack Obama

The Bourbon Room: Sometimes press coverage of a surge lags behind the actual voter movement. Similarly, a surge may ebb just as the media begins to report on it. Where is the Obama campaign on the surge continuum in Iowa and N.H.? The Bourbon Room senses you’ve plateaued a bit in Iowa.

David Plouffe: In recent polls, Senator Obama has been either tied or ahead of Senator Clinton in Iowa, South Carolina, and New Hampshire, a place where Senator Clinton was more than ten points ahead just recently. All the other trends over the last few weeks - in crowds, enthusiasm, and organization – also point to increasing support for Barack. But this will be a close race that goes down to the wire, and that is why we are focused on getting out Barack’s message of bringing Iowans - and the United States - change that we can believe in.

The Bourbon Room: Why isn’t Bill Clinton right to say an agent of change (he says it’s Hillary) is better than a “symbol” of change which he says is Obama?

David Plouffe: He’s right than an agent of change is more important than someone who’s just a symbol of change, but he’s wrong to say that’s Senator Clinton. There is only one candidate in this race who has a proven record of standing up to the special interests, and bringing Democrats and Republicans together to bring about change for ordinary Americans. And that’s Barack Obama.

The Bourbon Room: By definition, Obama represents more than partisan or ideological change. You’ve thought about this a million times, I’m sure, but as the first momentous contest looms so close and with the race so tight, how confident are you that Iowa and, by extension, America is ready for the political-cultural-racial change Obama represents? Secondarily, how great a risk is there that all this momentum may end up in bitter disappointment rather than transcendent change?

David Plouffe: As Senator Obama has said, when he’s elected America will look at itself differently and the world will look at America differently. We’ll have renewed hope that our leaders can bring this country together so we can meet the challenges we face, and the world will have renewed hope that America is ready to lead again. That’s a change Americans are ready for.

On the second question, if Senator Obama had listened to the cynics, he never would have passed the strongest ethics reform in Illinois in 25 years, or the most sweeping ethics reform in the U.S. Senate since Watergate. So we’re not going to start listening to the cynics now.

The Bourbon Room: There’s no history of 20-somethings playing a decisive role in the Iowa caucuses. None. Even up to 35 year olds, participation is minimal. Why on earth does this campaign believe it can do what no other campaign has done?

David Plouffe: There’s no doubt that Barack Obama has energized Americans to get involved in their democracy in a way that we haven’t seen in a long time. That’s why we’re seeing such large crowds wherever Obama goes. That’s why so many young people are involved in this campaign. And that’s why we expect young supporters to play an important role on caucus night.

The Bourbon Room: Who is the bigger obstacle to change in Washington, a lobbyist or a Republican?

David Plouffe: The biggest obstacle to change in Washington isn’t one person, one industry, or even one party. It’s a mindset that puts the partisan and special interests ahead of the people’s interests. That’s the mindset Barack Obama will change when he’s president. He’ll be honest with the American people about the challenges we face, and show leadership that’s based on principle and conviction, not poll-driven calculation.

The Bourbon Room: Has the Bush presidency lowered the bar on the “experience factor,” in that many Americans may now discount the value of his “experienced” set of advisers and look at Obama and say “could it get any worse?”

David Plouffe: The question many Americans are asking is who has the right kind of experience to be President. Senator Clinton has lots more experience working the system in Washington than Barack Obama. But the system in Washington is broken. As a U.S. Senator with a strong record of challenging conventional thinking in Washington and reaching across the aisle to get things done, Barack Obama has the experience America needs right now.

The Bourbon Room: The campaign has tried very hard to avoid calling itself a movement, a revolution or any all-encompassing label that would identify Obama in a way that might leave some feeling excluded or uneasy. After all, revolutions and movements have an us versus them division at their core. Why is it so important for Obama to avoid this “branding” and how much does America’s racial history play into that calculus?

David Plouffe: I disagree with the premise of the question. We’ve been calling ourselves a grassroots movement for change from the very beginning – because that’s exactly what we are. This campaign is built on an unprecedented amount of support from ordinary Americans. And it’s precisely because this movement includes so many Americans of every race, religion, and political party that Obama is the most electable candidate in this race, and the only candidate who can enter the White House with the broad coalition to enact an agenda for change.

The Bourbon Room: With camp Clinton lowering expectations in Iowa and Edwards trapped in the “must win” reality of his campaign, where is Team Obama on its chances in Iowa and the possibility and necessity of victory on Jan. 3?

David Plouffe: We’ve said from the beginning that every candidate has to do well in Iowa to continue on in this race. And we’re confident that we’ve built the kind of strong grassroots organization across the state to do just that on January 3.

[orbemnews]

Haaland, With a Key Vote in Her Column, Appears Headed for Confirmation WASHINGTON — Senator Joe Manchin III, the West Virginia Democrat who heads the Senate Energy Committee, announced Wednesday that he would vote to confirm Representative Deb Haaland of New Mexico to head the Interior Department, most likely ensuring that one of President Biden’s most embattled cabinet nominees will be confirmed to office, despite escalating opposition to her from Republicans. The vote of Mr. Manchin, a centrist Democrat from a fossil fuel state who often sides with Republicans on energy issues, could be crucial to Ms. Haaland’s confirmation. Republicans this week sharpened their attacks on the former environmental activist, signaling that the vote to confirm her could come down to party lines in the evenly-divided Senate. Mr. Manchin’s announcement that he plans to vote for Ms. Haaland also underscores the crucial role he will play in the success or failure of the president’s legislative agenda. (He said last week he would vote against another of Mr. Biden’s nominees, Neera Tanden, who was nominated to head the Office of Management and Budget, casting doubt on her prospects for confirmation.) If confirmed, Ms. Haaland would make history as the first Native American to head a cabinet agency. She would also play a central role in advancing President Biden’s climate change agenda as the head of an agency that oversees more than 500 million acres of public lands, including national parks, oil and gas drilling sites, and endangered species habitat. And she would be charged with enacting one of Mr. Biden’s most contentious proposals: the banning of future leases to conduct hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, for oil and gas on public lands. On Tuesday, Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington, told Ms. Haaland, “I almost feel like your nomination is sort of this proxy fight over the future of fossil fuels.” That proxy fight has ignited as Republicans have expressed concerns about Ms. Haaland’s history of pushing to shut down fossil fuel drilling and pipelines — positions that go far beyond those of Mr. Biden. During her two-day Senate hearing this week, Ms. Haaland, who was first elected to Congress in 2018, sought repeatedly to persuade Republicans that, in her role as the head of a federal agency, she would carry out the agenda of the president, rather than push her past personal positions. In particular, Republicans pressed her again about her past remarks, such as an interview in 2019 in which she said, “I am wholeheartedly against fracking and drilling on public lands,” and her participation with the Standing Rock Sioux protesters in North Dakota in 2016 who camped out for months in opposition to the Dakota Access oil pipeline. Ms. Haaland sought to thread a needle between those past remarks and actions, saying, “If I’m confirmed as secretary, that is a far different role than a congresswoman representing one small district in my state,” she said. “So I understand that role: It’s to serve all Americans, not just my one district in New Mexico.” Key Republicans appeared unpersuaded. Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, the ranking Republican on the energy panel, singled out remarks made by Ms. Haaland in 2018 as she campaigned to eliminate oil and gas production in New Mexico, and proposed legalizing and taxing cannabis as a way to make up for the lost state revenue. “Is selling marijuana among what the Biden administration calls the ‘better choices’ that the Biden administration has promised to give displaced oil and gas workers?” Mr. Barrasso asked. Ms. Haaland responded that the proposal was intended to signal that she wants to “diversify sources of revenue for education,” and she added, “I don’t know what President Biden’s stance is on marijuana.” Senator John Hoeven, Republican of North Dakota, pressed Ms. Haaland on the economic consequences of shutting down the Dakota Access pipeline, asking if she understood that the shutdown could lead to heavy job losses in his state. “If something shuts down, I understand that jobs can be lost,” Ms. Haaland said. “I don’t know the specificity of every single job there. I would be more than dedicated to being briefed on the issue if confirmed.” While Ms. Haaland told Republicans that she hoped to work with them if confirmed, she did not shy away from her heritage or her history as an environmentalist. In her closing statement, she said, “Navajo Code Talkers in World War II used the Navajo word for ‘our mother’ as code for ‘the United States.’ I feel very strongly that sums up what we’re dealing with.” She added: “You’ve heard the Earth referred to as Mother Earth. It’s difficult to not feel obligated to protect this land. ” But even before her hearing had concluded, the Republican National Committee sent out an email urging senators to vote against Ms. Haaland, writing, “By nominating Haaland, Biden is embracing far-left special interest groups who do not care what jobs they destroy, do not know the true impacts of their policies, and have no answers on when they can get Americans back to work.” Should Republicans unite against Ms. Haaland, she would need the support of every Democrat in the evenly divided Senate, which would allow Vice President Kamala Harris to cast the deciding ballot in a party-line vote. Until Wednesday, the vote of Mr. Manchin, who heads the Senate energy panel, remained uncertain. Mr. Manchin, whose home state of West Virginia’s economy is heavily reliant on coal mining, has expressed concern about Mr. Biden’s plans to curb fossil fuel exploration. In questions to Ms. Haaland, Mr. Manchin made clear that, while he did not agree with many of her past positions, he appeared open nonetheless to supporting Mr. Biden’s nominee, asking if she supported the idea of energy independence. Ms. Haaland responded: “We want to move forward with innovation and all of this for our energy needs. That’s not going to happen overnight. We will still rely on fossil fuel energy.” In a statement announcing his support of Ms. Haaland, Mr. Manchin said, “while we do not agree on every issue, she reaffirmed her strong commitment to bipartisanship, addressing the diverse needs of our country and maintaining our nation’s energy independence.” It may be that Ms. Haaland does not lose every Republican’s vote: Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, whose state is 18 percent Alaska Native, is still seen as a possible “yes” vote. In an effort to emphasize her bipartisan bona fides, Ms. Haaland on Tuesday was introduced to the Senate committee by Ms. Murkowski’s fellow Alaska Republican, Representative Don Young. “You may be wondering why I am doing this,” he said. “Debbie and I became friends” working on the House Natural Resources Committee, he said. “I have had her reach across the aisle to talk to me about Alaska. She’s bipartisan.” Nonetheless, Mr. Young stressed that he disagrees with proposed policies to end drilling. “Anyone who thinks we’re going to call off fossil fuels immediately is smoking pot,” he said, adding “that’s legal, by the way, in the state of Alaska.” Source link Orbem News #Appears #Column #confirmation #Haaland #Headed #Key #Vote

[kennedyaesthetic]

Joe kennedy iii is apparently going to be speak against trump state of the union. Its funny i just saw that after looking at the ask. I wonder what hes gonna say. "yeah the economy is booming, jobs have been coming back to the united states, ppls retirement has doubled bc of the booming stock market, unemployment is extremely low, wages are up, ppl are getting bonuses, but i have a famous last name so ill tell you how to vote" thatll be funny to see

I would guess he’ll focus on the inability for anything to get accomplished, the strong divisive nature preventing anyone from reaching across the aisle, and other pressing issues like immigration and healthcare. The economy is only one area of many that are important. Recently, the unrelated Republican Senator Kennedy from Louisiana described the current state of things pretty well when he said “our country was founded by geniuses but it’s being run by idiots” and “ardent Republicans think they’re winning, ardent Democrats think they’re winning, and the rest of the country wonders how we made it through the birth canal.” I don’t think it’s a matter of party preference to know that everything is pretty much an ugly mess right now with neither side making the most impressive decisions. That’s a big part of the reason why I’m genuinely excited to see Joe have this opportunity. There needs to be some new faces and voices out there rather than the same ones we’re all so used to seeing over and over that prompt an immediate eye roll and then no one really listens to a word they say. Joe very well may just reiterate the exact same words we’ve heard from everyone else before but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be given the chance. Trust me, he already has a lot of people speaking out against him on Twitter simply because his name was in a headline. Yes, he’s the grandson of RFK but that doesn’t discredit what he has to say nor does it make what he says gospel but I still think he should be given the chance to prove himself. Honestly, both parties should start planning for the future with fresh faces because it’s pretty obvious that most are sick of the ones that have been there for so long.

[everythingisonfireandimangry]

CVS is buying Aetna, one of the largest health insurance companies in the country, for $69 billion. 

No company should have $69 billion in assets. No merger this large should be allowed to occur. No merger that violates every antitrust principle there is should be allowed to occur.

And Trump and the Republicans will get the blame for part of this, but really the Democrats are to blame as well. Bill Clinton continued the deregulation of financial markets begun by Reagan. Obama oversaw Comcast buying NBC. Democrats at every turn have been fine feeding this monster, their only concern has been that it works form. 

Democrats and liberals are STILL crying foul that Hillary lost, mourning what could have been as if she would’ve been some savior. This merger is EXACTLY the sort of thing she supports, and has supported. Pelosi, Schumer - they love this bullshit. Oh sure they might complain about it when they think the right people are listening, but they’ve been all too eager to pave the way for laissez fair capitalism to become the order of the day.

For decades leftists and progressives have said this is where we’ve been heading. All through the Bush years, all through the Obama years, there were plenty of loud, articulate voices explaining in measured tones that Republicans have no principles or values, that Republican voters will always vote along party lines, that there is no such thing as a bridge too far for a party that regularly advocates the most atrocious violence and policy without compunction. 

And at each turn, liberals and Democrats have made excuses for their friends, family members, and colleagues who vote Republican. At each turn the Democratic Party has prided itself on holding procedure and tradition to be sacred. “Ram through progressive legislation when we have the power to? No thank you! We believe in working together and reaching across the aisle. The American people won’t tolerate a ruling party who ignores basic decorum”.

Republicans and their base have consistently been this craven, this selfish, this petty, tribalistic, and fear-driven over the last twenty years. And yet we were all supposed to pretend that there “moderate Republicans”, that there were reasonable, intelligent, thoughtful people who just happened to ally with the death cult that Republican party has been since Reagan took office. That you can be a reasonable politically astute person who felt no cognitive dissonance supporting policies that openly destroyed the lives of millions for the gains for a select few, policies that demolished the basic functions of government in service of corporate interests, policies that sold off the planet wholesale so that CEOs could post higher quarterly earnings.

Again and again, radicals and leftists have said that this is utter nonsense. When Obama took office he had a ruling majority in the House and Senate and a definitive victory over McCain to justify radical action. Yet he pushed for NO progressive policy. He didn’t even put universal healthcare on the table. When the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf became the largest oil spill in history, Obama and the Democrats did nothing. Gun massacre after gun massacre - nothing. 

They could’ve. They could’ve ignored decorum and procedure and done what Republicans are doing now. They could’ve strong armed every piece of legislation they wanted and proudly championed themselves as fighting for the well being of the American people after 8 years of a venal, self-serving, warmonger. They could’ve called Republican’s bluff on the filibuster and made Republicans work for, and own, every single obstructionist action they took.

All the while, Democrats and liberals insisted this was necessary. They insisted that this was unfortunate situation that Republicans had forced. That Obama’s hands were tied. That the Democrats in Congress were powerless - they couldn’t push for too much too quickly and they’d look unreasonable if they fought back too hard.

And all the while, AT EVERY PIVOTAL MOMENT, the progressive left said this was untrue. Said that Democrats and Obama needed to fight harder because Republicans would come back with a vengeance as soon as given a chance. That a strong progressive vision was the only way to combat the nihilism and corruption of Republicans. That the Republican party could go lower, get meaner, and be far more cruel than anything they’d done before and that we couldn’t let them have a chance.

And still, Democrats insisted they were being pragmatic. They insisted choosing Hillary as their candidate was the right move. They insisted that her record unpopularity and unfavorables as a candidate were irrelevant because they were unjust. They insisted that centrism was how you beat extremism. And Democrats lost. And STILL they are beating that drum. They’re justifying the loss, explaining that Hillary was in fact the right candidate, that it was so close in the midwest.

All the most progressive demographics of the Democratic party - young people, people of color, the LGBTQ community - voted overwhelmingly for Hillary. They turned out in huge numbers. Even though these demographics all also far prefer progressive policies and candidates, they rallied around Hillary for the sake of avoiding Trump. But you know who didn’t? Middle class white people, women and men. The centrist block went for Trump, the stupidest, most incompetent candidate in modern history. 

As if to justify this, Democrats paint these wild pictures of Trump as a savvy media mogul who knows his audience. Trump, the idiot savant who may not be a political wonk, but who is a master media manipulator. Trump, the deft messaging whiz who was a difficult mercurial candidate to run against.

Trump was, and is, a moron, with no discernible skill of any kind. His success can entirely be attributed to luck and the incompetence of his opponents. He is in the right place at the right time for his idiocy to propel him forward. That his messages and personality resonate in his favor says nothing of his abilities and everything of the present zeitgeist his constituents inhabit. He is the bird who keeps returning to the pond each day because the human arrives to give him food - the bird isn’t orchestrating anything, it simply knows that if it repeats it’s behavior it gets rewarded.

But this notion that Trump is somehow better, more skilled, more competent than he is is necessary for Democrats to justify why Hillary lost. It’s necessary because the truth is any decent candidate should not only have beat Trump, they should have demolished him. He should have lost in record numbers. Any half-way competent campaign team and candidate could have picked out the threads in Trump’s campaign that were resonating and developed an effective counter narrative. 

But Hillary had no narrative. She had no vision. She had no invigorating slogan or exciting imagery or quotable speeches. She ran a technocratic campaign that hinged on demeaning Trump voters, slandering progressive Democrats, and painting herself as a blank canvass every woman who could represent the struggles of all women. This, despite the fact that she is one of the top 0.1% of wealthiest most powerful individuals on Earth, has thrown women of color under the bus at every turn, proactively helped her husband slander the names of the women he raped and sexually assaulted, underpaid the women that worked for her as a Senator, and actively supported anti-humanitarian causes and polices namely standing with Israel against Palestine, opposing universal healthcare, supporting mass deportations, supporting fracking and fossil fuel interests, and supporting continued US military engagement in the Middle East.

Republicans are actively waging a policy war against the survival of humanity - they are supporting a president who taunts nuclear war and are working tirelessly to accelerate global warming, the most tangible existential threat humanity has ever faced. And they’re doing all of this by building off the foundation Democrats helped build and continue to defend.

It is necessary to recognize the brazen callousness of the Republican Party and to face it clear-eyed as so entrenched as to be entirely synonymous with the party itself. We cannot expect to turn things around if we continue to be naive about the prospect of ever working with the Republican Party to build a better world. But equally, we cannot expect to turn things around by remaining naive that the Democrats have done their best on our behalf or that the party’s sacred idols know something we don’t and that that is why they have failed to fight for a progressive vision. 

Neither of the major two US political parties wants to build a world that genuinely supports and serves the people - they each, in their own ways, want to preserve a world where those on top can remain on top, where wealth and power are guarded with the utmost sanctity, where the well being of humanity plays second fiddle to “growth” and “innovation”. 

CVS is buying Aetna because neither of the two major parties gives a shit if humanity survives another 200 years. We cannot count on them to save us and we cannot expect that to ever change. If we make it out of this it will be because we took back power for ourselves and held uncompromisingly to our own values and vision for a just world, not because we petitioned our current leaders to do better.

[drakus79]

The End of Socialism?

Well I was right in predicting that my prediction will probably be wrong :P

That’s what you call hedging your bets.  So why wait so long for another post?

1. I’m lazy and writing is hard.

2. I wanted to give enough time for things to settle before I posted my thoughts and predictions.

The reactions to Trump winning was amusing to say the least, and I wasn’t even one of his supporters.  It’s still amusing to this day, but we’re all starting to get used to him now and the mass hysteria is starting to subside.  So now that clearer heads can prevail, what does it all mean, and where are we going?

This is something I’ve seen coming for some time, but I think Trump’s speech at the UN clarified it.  And no I’m not talking about “Rocket Man” although, his country is part of the story (and I think “Madman Across the Water” would have been a better nickname).  Anyway, this whole election, everything leading up to it, and these final battles to come are the last gasps of a dying ideology.  Call it what you will Socialism/Marxism/Communism, yes I know they all have different definitions.  But like “conservative” “liberal” “left” “right” these are politically loaded terms that people have attempted, both successfully and unsuccessfully to redefine over the years in an effort to paint “their team” in a better light while denigrating their opposition. 

And Trump is guilty of this too.  Watching him criticize Venezuela for “faithfully implementing socialism” was more than a little bit laughable considering all economies are mixed to some degree, and the USA has fallen significantly in rank on the economic freedom index thanks largely in part to the sort of debt spending policies that Trump is in favor of.  It is no longer in the top 10 and has been surpassed by “socialist” countries like Canada and Australia.

Source:  http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

The US has become significantly more Socialist in the past century.  Just one look at the US debt clock gives you an indication that perhaps maybe we need to reverse course quickly to avoid a monetary crisis:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

It has surpassed 20 trillion, already well passed our GDP.  The ones advocating for more expensive social spending, specifically medicare for all (which is our largest budget item) may be unwittingly pushing for a default on the debt and the harshest austerity conditions imaginable.  Think late wave Soviet Union or current day Venezuela but here in the US.  I don’t think that’s what socialists imagine when they advocate for more public spending, but that’s often what they get when there’s not a strong enough competitive free market to support the socialist side of a mixed economy.

So when I say, “the end of socialism” this what I mean.  Socialism, as it has in the past, will be so discredited most likely as a result of socialists getting what they want and it backfiring horribly.  I don’t think the ideology will die off completely though.  It’s been around for as long as civilization has existed, just under the different names.  The Populares were the “socialists” of the Roman Empire after all.  The whole socialist vs. capitalist argument is so tired and old and will never be resolved because you will always find evidence on each side that supports your confirmation bias.

The truth is people in Socialist countries DO live better as long as the people are still wealthy enough to support the social programs and there are few enough corrupt special interest groups taking advantage of the system or bloating up the bureaucracy.  But I'm not sure if you can still call it socialism if most of the population believe that their tax money is well spent and they would voluntarily put their money towards those causes even if the government didn't force them to through taxes.

The way I see it, you can measure how effective your social program is by how voluntary it is.  The most voluntary would be to give directly to those in need without the need of government or any third party organization.  The next level would be through charities or churches.  Another level higher would be through local municipalities or county governments through taxes.  States would be the next level, and the Federal level would be the highest level.  And if we’re taking a global approach having it instituted through a global tax and world government.  With each level comes an increasing degree of bureaucracy and centralization.  The more bureaucratic and centralized it gets, the less trustful people are that their money is being well spent, and there is a higher tendency for the government to resort to the threat of force to tax their citizens.  Thus it becomes less voluntary.  So comparing a small “socialist” state like Norway to the United States is like apples and oranges, since the degree of voluntaryism involved in taxing and funding Norway’s socialist policies is much higher than it is here in the US.

In the US we are nowhere close to having a socialist system that is anywhere near voluntary.  You'll be hard pressed to find anyone on either side of the aisle who skips to the mailbox and happily mails their tax check feeling as though they’ve done a good deed by giving the government their money.  The average middle class family is taxed at 40% of their income between local, state and federal taxes, and that doesn’t include the hidden taxes and fees that are passed down to them whenever they try to buy anything in the “free market”.  At what percentage does taxation become slavery?  60%  70% 80%?  Or do we have to reach North Korea levels and have the government own 100% of property?  The US spends 4 trillion a year, and that's just on the Federal level.  If you throw in state and local budgets it's probably closer 7 trillion. And most of it us funded on debt.  More than 1 trillion has been spent on medicare alone.  That's more than all the European Socialist countries combined.  Yet we get very little in return.

That's because the US actually HAS become socialist.  Very few small businesses make it passed the startup phase anymore, instead they sell themselves to the larger conglomerates that are already embedded in the whole government/corporate super-monopoly that our "free market" has become.  Anyone who's taken one economics class knows that if there's a monopoly that corners the market, prices are going to go up.  Well that's happened in every major established market because the government has become the monopoly, and the big corporations are the parasites that leach off of it.  It's not just the military industrial complex either.  It's almost the entire finance industry, the healthcare industry, the insurance industry, the entertainment industry and main stream media, the auto industry, the construction industry, and pretty much any corporation the government deems "too big to fail".  This is why the average person can't pay for anything in those industries out of pocket anymore without insurance, going into debt, or government assistance.  The USA has essentially adopted a system of corporate communism.

The progressive era at the turn of the century was where the realignment and the trend towards socialism began. Both parties became progressive, and the low tax / small government / anti-central banking classical liberals eventually abandoned the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party had originally inherited the anti-federalist platform from classical liberals like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, but after the civil war, largely influenced by populist and marxist movements of the time, they instead became MORE progressive and MORE federalist than the Republicans, a party that had originally inherited the Federalist platform from classical conservatives like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton.

The Dem's position as the more federalist and progressive party was solidified with Wilson and later FDR. Wilson's signing of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 cemented the central bank's power, and we've had unprecedented deficit spending ever since. FDR's new deal and his reliance on John Maynard Keynes' economic policies of debt spending and expanding government programs during bust times to get us out out of the Great Depression actually had the reverse effect and really extended the Great Depression an additional decade longer than it should have lasted. It took victory in WWII to finally get us out of it. The rest of the world's economy was shattered and we came out of the war in much better shape comparatively which is why it looks as though spending on the war got us out of the depression.  In truth, we just lost the least. But we never really got out of the debt spending mentality and we allowed the military industrial complex to become a parasite to our increasingly bloated federal government. This has led to other large corporations following suit.  Now the government is one big corporate monopoly.

If you go back to my post where I talked about Strauss and Howe’s Generational Theory, I mentioned that each cycle’s fourth turning focused on resolving a major public problem that had been dogging the nation for that entire cycle.  But every solution creates a new problem, and the next cycle is all about dealing with and ultimately resolving that new problem.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory

During the Revolutionary Cycle, it was getting out from England’s oppressive Imperial Monarchy and establishing a limited government founded on classically liberal principles.  But in order to come to an agreement on the constitution, the founders had to compromise on slavery, and thus the issue of slavery was not resolved until the next cycle.

During the Civil War Cycle, it was about resolving the issue of slavery and reversing course on some of the more extreme aspects of classical liberalism (namely property rights as it pertained to owning slaves and states rights).  But this solution resulted in a much stronger Federal government and a sense of nationalism as well as an explosion of unrestrained capitalism during the Gilded Age.

During the Great Power Cycle, Marxism/Socialism, Populism, and Progressivism took hold both in Europe and the US in reaction to the abuses of unrestrained capitalism during the Industrial Revolution.  A sense of Nationalism also continued to grow, and a fragile system of alliances resulted in WWI, which in turn resulted in WWII when the National Socialists and International Socialists finally had their disastrous and horribly bloody ideological split.  The National Socialists lost and were discredited with good reason.  But the International Socialists came out looking like the good guys despite being just as totalitarian and we’ve been dealing with them ever since.

The Millennial Cycle has been all about the cold war and dealing with the International Socialists/Marxists/Communists whatever you want to call them.  You had your monsters like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot in Russia, China and Cambodia who killed hundreds of millions of people during the first part of the cycle, but now those countries have developed into mixed economies of varying degrees not too different from Western “Capitalist” Democracies.  The only total command economy left is North Korea, and “Rocket Man” seems to be an isolated laughingstock on the world stage.  Just one look at the economic freedom index tells you that NK ranks the lowest.  North Korea is the only country left that institutes full blown socialism.  Until as recently as this summer there were no property rights at all.  It seems that even Kim Jong Un has realized that some degree of free market capitalism is necessary to fund his government programs in the wake of all of the sanctions.  But sadly, the North Korean people are still essentially his slaves.

The socialist ideology has been discredited many times over to a large extent, but it keeps getting redefined and different words get used to try and reframe it.  And even after the Soviet Union fell in 1990, the influence of Marx is still felt strongly in the US.  Socialism even made a bit of a resurgence during Obama’s term as president.  So much so Trump’s election was like a Nationalist over-reaction to it.  For a moment there, in Charlottesville last month,  it seemed like National Socialism and the racism and anti-semitism that came along with it might be making a comeback as young men marched out with tiki-torches.   They even had the confidence that their message would be acceptable enough to the masses that they wouldn’t have to wear KKK masks this time.  But this was not the case.  They were shamed, disavowed, their faces forever enshrined on social media and associated with the hateful ideology they were trying promote and their lives are now ruined. But, the attention was shifted to the “anti-fascists”, who similarly wave communist and international socialist symbols from regimes that also committed acts of genocide.  After Trump’s election their actions were mostly ignored by the media, and there was a lot of pressure from elements of the establishment to NOT disavow them, despite the fact they DO wear masks and aren’t opposed to using violence to promote their political ends.  But that started to change after Charlottesville and they could no longer be ignored.

The writing seems to be on the wall to me.  All of this seems to be a sign that the ideology of socialism/globalism/marxism/communism ... whatever you want to call it, it’s been relabeled, redefined and rebranded so many times ... is coming to an end.  That’s not to say there won’t be an effort to reframe it again as something new in the future though, this tired old argument of more centralization of power vs. less centralization of power never goes away completely ...

[urbtnews]

Presidential Candidate Joseph Collins Jr. Endorses Sharifah Hardie for CA State Senate District 33

Presidential Candidate Joseph Collins Jr. Endorses Sharifah Hardie for CA State Senate District 33. In a surprising turn of events, presidential candidate Joseph Collins Jr. has announced his endorsement of Sharifah Hardie for CA State Senate District 33 which includes 15 cities from Long Beach to Huntington Park. Joseph Collins Jr., a Libertarian, who is running for the highest office in the nation, believes that America needs leaders who will work together to restore the nation and build confidence around the world. Collins recognizes these traits in himself and Hardie, ready to collaborate across party lines for a Republican catalyst in California. Collins Jr., a successful entrepreneur and community leader, has been gaining momentum in his presidential campaign with his message of unity and progress. He believes that Hardie, a business consultant and radio host, shares his vision for a better America and has the skills and experience to make it a reality. Together, they will work towards finding solutions to the issues facing the nation and build a brighter future for all Americans. Joseph Collins Jr. states, "I like folks that want to reach across the aisle for America." In his endorsement, Joseph Collins Jr. stated, "I am proud to endorse Sharifah Hardie for California State Senate District 33. She is a strong, capable leader who will reach across the aisle to find common ground for a better America. Her dedication to her community and her passion for positive impact make her the perfect candidate for this position. I am confident that together, we can bring real change to District 33, to California and the rest of the nation." With this endorsement, Hardie gains a powerful ally. Joseph Collins Jr.'s endorsement draws attention and credibility to her campaign. Demonstrating the backing of a leader dedicated to improving America is what's needed now. The American Thinker (https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/01/patriots_who_are_doing_something_what_are_you_doing.html) also recently acknowledged Hardie as a Patriot actively involved in efforts to save our country. Presidential Candidate Joseph Collins Jr. Endorses Sharifah Hardie for CA State Senate District 33 Collins Jr. and Hardie also would both be the first African-American selected to their respective positions if elected. Joseph Collins Jr. would be the first African-American Libertarian nominee, Sharifah Hardie the first African-American senator for District 33. Approaching the election, Collins Jr. and Hardie remain resolute in fostering positive change, inspiring others to join their cause. For voter registration information visit: https://RegisterToVote.Ca.gov For donations or details about Sharifah Hardie's CA State Senate District 33 campaign, visit www.SharifahHardieForSenate.com. To make your donation and learn more about Joseph Collins Jr. and his presidential campaign, visit www.JosephCollinsJr.com. Together, they are ready to lead America towards a brighter future. Read the full article

[democratsunited-blog]

Michael Bloomberg To Shell Out $80 Million To Help Democrats Flip The House

https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=4249

Michael Bloomberg To Shell Out $80 Million To Help Democrats Flip The House

Billionaire media mogul and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has approved a plan to spend at least $80 million of his personal fortune on the upcoming midterm elections. His goal, as was first reported by The New York Times on Wednesday, is to help Democrats wrest control of the House from the GOP.

A political independent who has traditionally supported candidates on both sides of the aisle, Bloomberg said in a statement that while he doesn’t “believe in partisanship” and doesn’t much care for political parties, he’d decided to use his considerable wealth to buoy the Democrats because the GOP had “failed” to “prove they could govern responsibly.”

“I’ve never thought that the public is well-served when one party is entirely out of power, and I think the past year and half has been evidence of that,” Bloomberg said. “[Republicans] have done little to reach across the aisle to craft bipartisan solutions ― not only on guns and climate change, but also on jobs, immigration, health care, and infrastructure. As a result, Congress has accomplished very little.”

Congress has failed, legislatively & constitutionally. We need new leadership that will re-assert Congress as a co-equal branch of government. In the midterm elections, I will be supporting Democrats & their bid to take over the House. My full statement: https://t.co/JWmUegL4J1

— Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) June 20, 2018

Bloomberg, whose net worth has been estimated at over $51 billion, said some Republicans, like Arizona Sen. John McCain, have been taking “their constitutional and legislative responsibilities seriously … But too many have been absolutely feckless, including ― most disappointingly ― the House leadership.”

Democrats need 23 seats in November to have a majority in the House. The Times reported that most of the $80 million Bloomberg is planning to spend on the midterms will go towards supporting Democratic congressional candidates. 

“To be clear: I have plenty of disagreements with some Democrats, especially those who seek to make this election about impeachment. Nothing could be more irresponsible,” Bloomberg said. “But I believe that ‘We the People’ cannot afford to elect another Congress that lacks the courage to reach across the aisle and the independence to assert its constitutional authority. And so I will support Democratic candidates who are committed to doing both.”

He added that he’ll be supporting both Republican and Democratic gubernatorial candidates this year who have “shown strong leadership on gun safety, the environment, education, and other critical issues facing the country.”

According to CNBC, Bloomberg’s mammoth donation will place him in “the very top echelons of political spending.” The hefty amount surpasses the $30 million midterm pledge recently made by GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, and the reported $70 million that billionaire and liberal hedge-fund manager Tom Steyer has promised to spend to boost millennial voter turnout in November’s elections and to bankroll a crusade to impeach Donald Trump. 

It was big news when Tom Steyer pledged $30m to flip the House.

It was very big news when Sheldon Adelson added $30m of his own to keep it in R hands.

This $80m from Michael Bloomberg to paint it blue qualifies as huge news. https://t.co/4liiH85VCr

— Gabriel Debenedetti (@gdebenedetti) June 20, 2018

Howard Wolfson, a former executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is reportedly helping to oversee Bloomberg’s spending effort. He told CNN that the media mogul plans to spend the money through his own super PAC rather than donating to Democratic Party committees or other groups.

“We will make sure that voters remember which members of Congress allowed the President to separate children from their parents,” Wolfson wrote in a Wednesday tweet, referring to the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance immigration policy that has led to the separation of families at the U.S.-Mexico border. 

Bloomberg said this week that “tearing innocent children from their parents is un-American.”

We will make sure that voters in November remember which members of Congress allowed the President to separate children from their parents. https://t.co/3oy2XFcZWx

— howard wolfson (@howiewolf) June 20, 2018

Yuri Gripas/Reuters

A political independent who has traditionally supported candidates on both sides of the aisle, Michael Bloomberg said this week that he will be supporting Democrats in the upcoming midterms — in hopes they can flip the House.

!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function()n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments);if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)(window,document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1621685564716533'); // Edition specific fbq('init', '1043018625788392'); // Partner Studio fbq('track', "PageView"); fbq('track', 'ViewContent', "content_name":"Michael Bloomberg To Shell Out $80 Million To Help Democrats Flip The House","content_category":"us.hpmgpol" ); fbq('trackCustom', 'EntryPage', "section_name":"Politics","tags":["@health_gad","@health_depression","@health_models","@health_erectile","@health_ibs","politics-and-government","new-york-city","elections","democrats","michael-bloomberg","howard-wolfson"],"team":"us_huffpost_now","ncid":null,"environment":"desktop","render_type":"web" ); waitForGlobal(function() return HP.modules.Tracky; , function() /* TODO do we still want this? $('body').on('click', function(event) HP.modules.Tracky.reportClick(event, function(data) fbq('trackCustom', "Click", data); ); ); */ ); Read full story here

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

During her decade in national politics, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has been profiled, ad nauseam, by any number of very important publications: The New Yorker, New York Magazine (a couple times), Vogue, The New York Times.

But her 2012 interview with Self magazine, three years into her Senate tenure, is among the most compelling and useful texts for the Gillibrand close-reader. In a span of 599 words, the senator manages to ruminate on fitness tips (her 40-pound postpartum weight loss being the ostensible reason for the story), touch on the difficulties of being a working mother, name-drop several across-the-aisle friendships, and plug, in the most deft of humblebrags, her tireless spirit: “I approached losing weight the same way I’ve approached any other challenge throughout my life: I figured out exactly what I needed to do to succeed and dove in. I was determined.” Through Self, Gillibrand was cleverly reaching beyond snoozy news stories to a voting public that would perhaps remember a young senator who talked food-journaling and breastfeeding.

But the interview also offers an oblique insight into Gillibrand’s ever so determined and calculating rise in Democratic politics: At the time, Gillibrand had a standing weekly squash date with Sen. Al Franken. Yet five years later, she was the first Democratic senator to call for Franken to resign, and became, by no accident, the face of a movement to clean House (as it were) of harassers in public office.

No one was off the table, including — or perhaps especially — political patrons. Gillibrand said Bill Clinton, husband of the woman whose Senate seat she inherited, should have resigned from office. That led Clintonworld capo Philippe Reines to tweet, among other things, “Over 20 yrs you took the Clintons’ endorsements, money, and seat. Hypocrite. Interesting strategy for 2020 primaries. Best of luck.”

But Gillibrand’s appetite for biting the hands that feed her might actually be just what brings her success in the Democrats’ all-but-free-for-all scramble for leadership. She sniffed out the direction of the party months, even years ago, and has been tacking hard to the left ever since. She is attuned to the base, fluent in the new mediums of activism and, perhaps most importantly, knows how to spin. Who is Kirsten Gillibrand and what does she want? The latter is easy to answer: She likely wants to be president.1 But the former — who exactly is this woman whose moment it is we’re all living through — takes a bit more to parse.

The Gillibrand biography has, at this point in her career, reached a calcified, rote state that is particularly advantageous to politicians: maximum schmaltz, minimum actual insight. Generally, what you’re meant to take away from a Gillibrand bio paragraph in a profile is this: raised in regular old America; strong female role models growing up (including a grandmother who seemed to be Albany’s own LBJ); driven; Dartmouth; fancy lawyer (but let’s not linger on that too long); loves her kids; loves God; loves working across the aisle.

She has been charged in print on not one, but two occasions with being less-than-reflective.

The New Yorker called her “not given to soul-searching,” while New York called her “not inclined toward introspection.” FiveThirtyEight is neither given nor inclined to say much more than that Gillibrand might just be well media-trained, or perhaps she’s the kind of person who really does just plunge ahead. Just a political animal with a goal in mind, as she told the good people of Self.

She’s sensed the identity politics vehicle of the era, and has settled into the driver’s seat for a long haul.

At her essence, Gillibrand would seem to be not an ideologue, but an operator. In order to win she has evolved her positions, changed her mind … flip-flopped, in less polite terms. She used to have an “A” grade from the NRA, when she represented a conservative upstate district in the House, and she was against protections for sanctuary cities. One New York immigration group, incensed by her 2009 appointment to the Senate, issued a press release noting “she strongly supported throwing more resources toward ineffective border enforcement but appeared to oppose any path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.” Progressive members of New York’s congressional delegation were so incensed by her appointment, they threatened to run against her.

In 2017, things are different. Gillibrand supports a path to citizenship, and has called Trump’s border wall a “hurtful, terrible policy that will never work.” In 2016, she wept in an interview while discussing her former stance on guns. She has voted against Trump’s positions more often than any other senator and is the sole member to vote against every one of the president’s Cabinet nominees. Gillibrand is a co-sponsor of Bernie Sanders’s single-payer health care bill, widely seen as a new Democratic presidential litmus test. In the House, where she served from 2007 to 2009, she was among the least liberal members of the Democratic caucus, ranking 209th out of 241. But in the Senate, she has skewed left. In the last Congress, she was the seventh most liberal member of the 46-person Democratic caucus.

So what to make of this impressive litany of flip-flops, her ease in changing her mind? It would appear that Gillibrand is a Democrat above all else. As the party has shifted left, so has she.

In other words, she is good at politics, if by politics we mean sensing the direction of the populace, capturing their sentiments in rhetoric, turning that rhetoric into votes, fundraising off those votes, gaining power and popularity, running for re-election, winning, and doing it all over again.

And the membership of the Democratic Party has, after all, gotten a whole lot more liberal during Gillibrand’s time in office, a trend that is only likely to continue. In 2008, according to Pew, 41 percent of Democrats called themselves “moderate” and 33 percent said they were “liberal.” By 2015, the ideological balance had flipped in the party, with 42 percent of Democrats calling themselves “liberal” and 38 percent “moderate.”

As of 2015, 49 percent of millennial Democrats identified as “liberal,” meaning that it’s smart politics to evolve left. Gillibrand is on to something. When people write that it is Gillibrand’s moment, it largely has to do with her capitalizing on the #MeToo movement to call out harassers. (After Trump’s taunting tweet, for instance, her office sent out a fundraising email.) But Gillibrand has been at the political fore of feminism’s resurgence for years. Well before this year, she made waves advocating for changes to the way the military prosecutes sexual assault, and she has introduced a paid family leave bill every year for the past five years.

She’s sensed the identity politics vehicle of the era, and has settled into the driver’s seat for a long haul. A recent poll showed that 64 percent of Democrats thought that sexual harassment was a very serious problem in the country, and 86 percent of women college graduates thought it represented a serious problem in society. Should Gillibrand run for president, that group, which continues to lean ever more Democratic, would be an important constituency.

And while many public figures are tone deaf on Twitter or have fallen victim to equivocating on behalf of allies (as Nancy Pelosi has), Gillibrand understands the moral absolutism required to survive in the Twitter age. “I think when we start having to talk about the differences between sexual assault and sexual harassment and unwanted groping, you are having the wrong conversation,” she said at a press conference calling for Franken to resign. “You need to draw a line in the sand and say none of it is OK. None of it is acceptable.” Polls showed that about half of Democrats thought Franken should leave.

So if her 2020 viability as a candidate is attached to the cultural reckoning over harassment and women’s empowerment, would Gillibrand still face the challenges Hillary Clinton had as a female candidate?

Any election she’s in will feature gendered lines of attack, but Gillibrand’s advantages go back to the kind of assured wielding of soft power she showed in that Self magazine interview. A generation younger than Clinton, Gillibrand has had the luxury of refining her power, allowing it to reside not just in the Senate chamber, but also in the facts of her womanhood. Iron ladies aren’t entirely in vogue; relatability is. And the senator from New York has made her empathy something central to her persona — it might have even helped her get her current job. Then-Gov. David Paterson told The New Yorker that she was a great comfort to him after an “SNL” parody centering around his legal blindness. “I’ve never mentioned to her really why I picked her, but that incident played a role,” he said.

Empathy might have helped her rise in politics, but it’s that operator’s sense that has likely helped keep her in it. In the last week of a hard-fought 2006 election to Congress, a police report about a domestic violence incident involving Gillibrand’s Republican opponent surfaced. Gillibrand, New York Magazine later noted, “has never denied that her campaign was the source of the leak despite being asked about it several times. She defeated Sweeney by six points.”

Politics can be a nasty line of work, and Kirsten Gillibrand is good at politics. Maybe that’s all a person needs to make their moment.

[morganbelarus]

Alabama Dem Doug Jones votes with GOP on spending bill to avoid shutdown

close

Video

Senator-elect Doug Jones talks victory in Alabama

Does the Democrat's victory put more pressure on the GOP to pass tax reform before he gets to the Senate?

Newly elected Alabama Sen. Doug Jones, in his most high-profile vote since taking office, was one of five Democratic senators to vote overnight with Republicans on a spending bill to avoid a government shutdown.

Jones’ election to the Senate last month marked the first time in 25 years that Alabama voters picked a Democratic senator.

The election results sparked much political speculation about whether Jones would vote with Republicans or fellow Democrats, considering that Alabama is one of the country’s most conservative-leaning states and gave President Trump more than 62 percent of its vote in 2016.

While Jones’ vote this weekend might suggest an intent to represent his electorate or win a 2020 re-election, he made clear from the start of his improbable special-election win that his top priority upon arriving on Capitol Hill would be to keep alive the Children's Health Insurance Program, which the GOP spending bill did for several years.

“Because of CHIP and the many families in Alabama and around our country that would be put in jeopardy by a government shutdown, I felt compelled to vote yes,” Jones said in a statement posted on his Twitter account.

Jones won last month by less than 2 percentage points over Republican candidate Roy Moore, a conservative firebrand whose campaign was severely damaged in the closing months by allegations of sexual misconduct as a young man.

The Republican leaders of the GOP-controlled Senate failed overnight to get the 60 votes needed to move forward and pass a temporary spending bill to keep the government fully operational past Friday midnight.

Republicans have a 51-to-49 member majority in the Senate. The vote was 50-49.

Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain did not vote because he’s home recovering from cancer treatment.

The four other Senate Democrats who voted for the bill were Sens. John Donnelly of Indiana; Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota; Joe Manchin of West Virginia; and Claire McCaskill of Missouri.

All four are up for re-election this year in states that voted for Trump in 2016.

Jones, who has the seat left open after Republican Jeff Sessions became attorney general, is up for re-election in 2020.

In his victory speech last month, Jones effectively avoided any talk about how he’d vote in Congress but made clear that he won with bipartisan support. And he urged the GOP-controlled Congress to fund CHIP before he arrived in January.

The Alabama Republican Party was straightforward after Jones’ win about how it wanted him to vote.

“During this campaign, we heard Mr. Jones repeatedly say he would talk about ‘kitchen table issues’ and that he would ‘reach across the aisle’ to work with Republicans,” said party Chair Terry Lathan.

“While these issues weren’t discussed and no other Democratic Senator has worked with the Republicans, all eyes will be on his votes. Alabamians will watch the issues he will support or try to stop. We will hold him accountable for his votes.”

She also fired a warning shot at Jones -- pointing out that essentially 60 percent of elected offices in Alabama are held by Republicans, which means “a strong slate” of candidates in upcoming elections.

Trending in Politics

DC lawmakers dig their heels in, point fingers as government shutdown rolls on

More From this publisher : HERE ; This post was curated using : TrendingTraffic

=> *********************************************** Article Source Here: Alabama Dem Doug Jones votes with GOP on spending bill to avoid shutdown ************************************ =>

Alabama Dem Doug Jones votes with GOP on spending bill to avoid shutdown was originally posted by 16 MP Just news