#if they expand into iran its only going to get worse | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

xtruss · 1 year ago

Text

What BRICS Expansion Means For India

From left: Chinese President Xi Jinping, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov appear at the 2023 BRICS summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, on Aug. 24.Gianluigi Guercia/AFP via Getty Images

The main headline from last week’s BRICS summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, is that the bloc will expand, adding new members for the first time since South Africa’s admission in 2010. It may be easy to see the enlargement of BRICS—currently made up of Brazil 🇧🇷, Russia 🇷🇺, India 🇮🇳, China 🇨🇳, and South Africa 🇿🇦 —as a bad thing for New Delhi. After all, more members could elevate Beijing’s influence in the group.

Some observers are also concerned about BRICS’s future orientation. One of the new members, Iran, is at odds with the West; the group—initially intended to promote the voices of emerging economies—could take on a more clearly anti-Western stance, especially given China’s and Russia’s influence. That would present a challenge for India, which aims to balance relations with the West and the countries beyond it.

However, this analysis overlooks the potential benefits of BRICS expansion for India. First, more members may grant China more influence on the global stage, but it also means more influence for BRICS itself. That is good for India, which has long viewed the bloc as an important entity because it champions the causes of the global south and contributes to multipolarity, two foreign-policy priorities for New Delhi.

Aside from Iran, the other new members—Argentina 🇦🇷, Egypt 🇪🇬, Ethiopia 🇪🇹, Saudi Arabia 🇸🇦, and the United Arab Emirates 🇦🇪—are not staunchly anti-West. As a result, a larger BRICS can hardly be described as an anti-Western bloc. And half of the new members are top Indian partners: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Finally, most of the additions are in the Middle East, a growing arena for New Delhi’s engagement because of energy and trade interests and broader geopolitical considerations.

The BRICS expansion didn’t go entirely New Delhi’s way. India was reportedly opposed to adding another country that is subject to international sanctions such as Iran, which is not only hostile toward the West but also expanding ties with China. Analysts have rightly noted that most of the new members are also key sources of engagement for Beijing.

But it could have been much worse for India, especially since it also enjoys relations with all of the new members, including Iran. New Delhi will see six friendly countries added to BRICS, most of them in a region key to Indian interests.

India could face new challenges in the future: BRICS could expand further, and the next round of new members may not be as favorable to India. For example, China and Russia could push for Pakistan to join, although its weak economy would make it a poor candidate. But India enjoys strong ties with the global south, largely because of its historic role as a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement during the Cold War. Most potential new BRICS members would be at least friendly to New Delhi.

Ultimately, discussions about what BRICS expansion means for India may be getting ahead of themselves. That’s because new members could exacerbate one of the bloc’s weaknesses: a struggle to execute, or as FP’s C. Raja Mohan describes it, to turn “soaring rhetoric on global issues into concrete, practical outcomes.” This stems from BRICS’s consensus-based decision-making process. With 11 members instead of five, it will be even more difficult to reach consensus.

For now, this much is true: BRICS expansion could advance Indian interests, giving New Delhi more clout with a set of nations with which it is keen to expand relations.

— Foreign Policy | August 30, 2023

#BRICS #Expansion #India 🇮🇳#Brazil 🇧🇷 Russia 🇷🇺 India 🇮🇳 China 🇨🇳 and South Africa 🇿🇦#Argentina 🇦🇷 | Egypt 🇪🇬 | Ethiopia 🇪🇹 | Saudi Arabia 🇸🇦 | United Arab Emirates 🇦🇪

1 note · View note

opedguy · 2 years ago

Text

Russia Aligns with Iran in Ukraine

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), Dec. 10, 2022.--Escalating the Ukraine War into the dreaded blocs talked about by 63-year-old German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, 70-year-old Russian President Vladimir Putin now has a military alliance with Iran, supplying the Russian Federation drones and ballistic missiles. Scholz warned recently about the world breaking into the same blocs as the Cold War with countries like China, North Korea and Iran joining a military alliance against the West. With Ukraine’s 44-year-old President Volodymyr Zelensky striking Dec. 6 airbases deep inside Russia the war has turned for the worse. All the warnings by 63-year-old NATO Secretary-General Jens Stotenberg about the war expanding to NATO are starting to come true. Zelensky doesn’t care if the U.S. and NATO are forced to commit troops or a no-fly-zone, he only wants to beat back the Russian invasion off Ukrainian soil.

Iran’s currently dealing with widespread unrest from 22-year-old Kurdish woman Mahsa Amini who was killed Sept. 16 by Iran’s Basij militia or “morality police” for violating Iran’s head-scarf dress code. So when it comes to Iran needing to partner with Russia, the feelings are mutual now for Putin, who’s expended much of Russia’s short and medium-range missile stockpile. Getting “Kamikaze” drones and now ballistic missiles from Iran shows how the Biden foreign policy has made a mess of the international order. U.S.-Russian relations were once a lynchpin of global foreign policy, now the Kremlin admits under Biden U.S.-Russian relations have never been worse. But the consequences to the Ukraine War, including 80-year-old President Joe Biden’s proxy war against the Kremlin, has turned U.S. foreign policy on its head. U.S. lawmakers, on both sides of the aisle, don’t know what to do. Prevailing anti-Russian attitudes in Congress have led to very bad decisions.

French President Emmanuel Macron, 44, is the only world leader in the Western Alliance willing to confront the slow-moving train wreck that, as Stoltenberg says, could suck NATO into a wider war on the European continent. “Iran’s support to the Russian military is likely to grow in the coming months. Russia is attempting to obtain more weapons, including hundreds of ballistic missiles,” said U.K. Defense Ministry. Pentagon Spokesman John Kirby confirmed that Moscow gives Terhan “an unprecedented level of military and technical support that is transforming the relationship into a full-fledged defense partnership.” Kirby admits that the Biden foreign policy has pushed Russia and Iran into a military alliance. White House officials have an inescapable choice to get foreign policy back on track. Biden must end the Ukraine War and get back to normal relations with Russia.

Zelensky’s agenda to get back every inch of Ukraine’s sovereign territory is unrealistic and dangerous to peace on the European Continent. NATO’s Stoltenberg’s has kept Ukraine out of the alliance precisely because Zelensky would start WW III. Biden, who funds Ukraine’s bankrupt government and the war, must get down to brass tacks with Zelensky, telling him he must resolve the conflict at the peace table not on the battlefield. With Putin’s new military alliance with Iran, the battle lines are drawn, without any way out of the conflict for the U.S. and Ukraine. Putin doesn’t win the war going to the peace table, he’s forced to make territorial concessions to Ukraine in a neutral setting that can resolve many of the thorny issues. Biden and Zelensky must conclude now that world peace is far more important than continuing to wage war against the Russian Federation.

Biden should heed the calls from French President Emmanuel Macron before the war escalates to a wider conflict with NATO. Stoltenberg’s on his way out of NATO but recognizes the dangers for the European Continent with the current war. Pentagon officials say they’ll try to counter Iran’s ballistic missiles with more long-range missiles from the U.S. But where does the war lead now that Iran has officially joined the battle against the U.S. Struggling with domestic unrest, it’s a perfect time for 83-year-old Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to join up with Russia. Iran looks at Russia much the same way that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad did in 2015 when he battled former President Barack Obama’s proxy war against the Damacus government. It took Russian involvement in 2015 to save the al-Assad government. Now Russia looks to Iran for a new military alliance.

Biden, EU and NATO must reassess whether a protracted war with Russia does world peace any good. Zelensky shows no reluctance to pull the U.S. and NATO into a wider conflict on the European Continent. Iran joining forces with Moscow is a direct consequence of Biden tossing U.S.-Russian relations under the bus to save Ukraine. But in the process, Biden has destabilized world peace and increased the chances of WW III on the European Continent. Peacemakers like Macron and Scholz see where the Ukraine is heading, as Stoltenberg says, to a wider conflict. Biden needs to sit down with Zelensky and tell him that the U.S. isn’t going to push Europe into a new world war. Zelensky has no qualms about involving the U.S. and NATO into his war with the Kremlin. Macron’s call for peace should not be met in Kiev with contempt to a genuine plan to spare Ukraine more carnage and destruction.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

0 notes

girlactionfigure · 3 years ago

Text

Special: Experts Say New Nuclear Agreement Worse than the Old One

What is pushing the Biden Administration to give up the store to the murderous mullahs?

Israeli officials recently received an urgent warning:

It’s signed by three worried citizens: Maj. Gen. (res.) Aharon Ze’evi-Farkash, a former director of Military Intelligence; Gideon Frank, a former head of the Atomic Energy Commission; and Ariel Levite, one of Israel’s leading nuclear experts. The document’s authors were invited to present it at several meetings with the heads of the relevant organizations. …

According to Ze’evi-Farkash, Frank and Levite, the emerging agreement is worse than its predecessor, which was signed in 2015. It reflects the collapse of the Netanyahu policy that encouraged Trump to withdraw from the original deal.

The pressure of the economic sanctions imposed by the Trump administration didn’t break the Iranians, and in the past two years they started to violate the agreement (without withdrawing from it) and progress toward a nuclear bomb.

The three experts write: “Reliable, extremely worrisome information has reached us about the status of the negotiations between the powers and Iran. The negotiations stand at a very advanced stage. It emerges that in their eagerness to remove the issue from the agenda, the Americans are now willing to suffice with a ‘reduced’ arrangement in which most of the sanctions that the Trump administration has imposed on Iran since 2018 will be lifted. In exchange, Iran will retreat from only some of the steps it has taken since 2019 to advance its nuclear project.”

The three warn that the United States is now willing to make do with only partial restrictions on the advanced enrichment capability (five times as fast as its predecessor) that Iran has been exercising in recent years, and to forgo some of the supervision clauses over the Iranians’ research and development efforts. They say Washington is also willing to show flexibility on the study of the history of the nuclear program by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which requires access to facilities and full explanations to the agency’s inspectors.

According to the three experts, “The United States intends to rebuff criticism of the reduced agreement with the promise that all these additional issues and others will be dealt with in a future improved, long-term agreement. However, Iran is steadfast in its opposition to negotiate such an accord, and in any event the prospect that it will be achieved in the foreseeable future appears very poor.”

I doubt that Israel’s input will have any effect on the American negotiation team, which is led by the longtime opponent of the Jewish state, Robert Malley.

The article continues:

Ze’evi-Farkash, Frank and Levite warn that a diminished agreement will have serious implications for Israel. “Iran will step forward legitimately as a nuclear-threshold state possessing know-how, experience, advanced centrifuges and a production infrastructure of enriched uranium that will enable it to achieve confidently, within just months of deciding, fissionable material for a first weapon and for a number of weapons shortly thereafter.”

They maintain that the 2015 agreement saw to “a warning time of about a year for Iran to arrive at sufficient fissionable material to manufacture one nuclear bomb. According to the emerging agreement, and in the absence of supervisory and enforcement arrangements on the activity of the weapons group, Iran will be able to advance secretly and shorten significantly the time required to obtain a nuclear arsenal.”

“The warning time for a renewal of an Iranian effort to achieve the weapon will be abbreviated and will, accordingly, limit the available options for thwarting it. Iran will retain an extensive underground enrichment infrastructure, which it has actually extended recently, that will hamper activity to thwart it.”

“A return to the contours of the previous agreement will also obligate the United States to go back to refraining from intervening against the Iranian nuclear program, and this could have implications for Israel’s freedom of action. A reduced arrangement, in which most of the sanctions on Iran will be lifted, will expand the resources available to that country for taking action in spheres disturbing to us and also create a feeling of immunity.”

In other words, Iran will be able to get the bomb with very little lead time for Israel to act, and the US will be obligated to prevent Israel from acting against Iran. In addition, the agreement will make funds available for Iran’s regional terrorist proxies that threaten Israel and the Sunni Arab states.

I cannot bend my mind enough to see how this is in America’s interest. It certainly amplifies an existential threat against Israel, and will leave her no options other than military ones.

Abu Yehuda

25 notes · View notes

knifeonmars · 4 years ago

Text

Capsule Reviews, February 2021

Here's some things I've been reading.

The Curse of Brimstone

DC's New Age of Heroes books, emerging from the beginning of Scott Snyder's creative-flameout-as-crossover-event Metal, mostly constituted riffs on Marvel heroes like the Fantastic Four (in The Terrifics) or the Hulk (in Damage). The Curse of Brimstone is a riff on Ghost Rider. It's... uneven. The first volume is generally pretty good, and when Phillip Tan is drawing it, as he does the first three and a half issues, it's gorgeous and unique, when he departs though, the quality takes a nose dive. None of the replacement artists, including the great Denis Cowan, can quite fill his shoes, and the story gets old fast. Guy makes a deal with the devil (or rather, a devil-like inhabitant of the "Dark Multiverse" as a not horribly handled tie-in to the conceits of Metal), realizes it's a raw deal, and rebels. The characters are flat, lots of time is spent with the main character's sister haranguing him to not use his powers (it is, in my humble opinion, something of a cardinal sin to have a character whose primary role is telling other characters to stop doing interesting things), too many potboiler "I know you're still in there!/I can feel this power consuming me!" exchanges, a couple of underwhelming guest spots (including a genuinely pointless appearance by the old, white, boring Doctor Fate) too many flashbacks, and not enough of the action. There's potential in the classic demonic hero rebelling plotline and its link to the liminal spaces of the DC universe, forgotten towns and economic depression, but the wheels come off this series pretty much as soon as Tan leaves. The really disappointing this is that the series is clearly built as an artistic showcase, so after Tan's shockingly early departure, the main appeal of the series is gone and there's nothing left but the playing out of an obviously threadbare story.

Star Wars - Boba Fett: Death, Lies, and Treachery

I don't care much about Star Wars these days, and I think that most of the old Expanded Universe was, as evidenced by Crimson Empire, pretty bad. Death, Lies, and Treachery, is that rare Star Wars EU comic which is actually good. John Wagner writes and he's in full-on 2000 AD mode, writing Boba Fett as a slightly more unpleasant Johnny Alpha (who is like a mercenary Judge Dredd, for those unfamiliar) right on down to the appearance of a funny alien sidekick for one of the characters. The main attraction is Cam Kennedy's art though, along with his inimitable colors: this might be the best looking Star Wars comic ever. The designs are all weird and chunky, with an almost kitbashed feeling that captures the lived in aesthetic of classic Star Wars, and the colors are one of a kind. Natural, neutral white light does not exist in this comic, everything is always bathed at all times in lurid greens or yellows, occasionally reds, and it looks incredible. In terms of "Expanded Universe" material for Star Wars, this hits the sweet spot of looking and feeling of a piece, but exploring the edges of the concept with a unique voice. It's great. I read this digitally, but I'd consider it a must-buy in print if I ever get the chance at a deal.

Zaroff

Zaroff is a French comic (novel? novella?). It's like 90 pages and it delivers exactly on its premise of "Die Hard starring the bad guy from The Most Dangerous Game." It's pretty good. Count Zaroff, he of the habitual hunting of humans, turns out to have killed a mafia don at some point, and after miraculously escaping his own seeming death at the end of the original story, finds himself hunted by the irate associates of this gangster, who have brought along Zaroff's sister and her kids to spice things up. Zaroff not only finds himself the hunt, but he also has to protect his estranged family as they struggle to survive. Nothing about this book or its twists and turns is likely to surprise you, but I don't think being surprised is always necessary for quality. Zaroff delivers on pulpy, early-20th century jungle action, is gorgeously rendered, and the fact that Zaroff himself is an unrepentant villain adds just enough of an unexpected element to the proceedings and character dynamics that it doesn't feel rote. There's a couple of points, ones typical of Eurocomics, which spark a slight sour note, such as some "period appropriate" racism and flashes of the male gaze, but for the most part these are relatively contained. It's good.

Batman: Gothic

Long before Grant Morrison did their Bat-epic, they wrote Batman: Gothic, an entirely different, but then again maybe not so different, kind of thing. It starts off with what must be called a riff on Fritz Lang's film, M, only where that story ends with a crew of gangsters deciding they cannot pass moral judgment on a deranged child-murderer, in Morrison's story they go ahead and kill him, only for the killer to return years later to rather horribly murder all of them as a warmup for a grandiose scheme involving unleashing a weaponized form of the bubonic plague on Gotham City as an offering to Satan. Along the way it turns out that said villain, one Mr. Whisper, is a former schoolmaster of Bruce Wayne's, who terrified the young Batman in the days before his parent's deaths. It's an earlier Morrison story and it shows. Certain elements presage their later Batman work; Mr. Whisper as a satanic enemy recalls the later Doctor Hurt, and the cathedral Mr. Whisper built to harvest souls recalls what writers like Morrison, Milligan, and Snyder would do concerning Gotham as a whole years later.The art, by Klaus Janson, is spectacular. If you're familiar at all with his work collaborating with Frank Miller you'll see him continuing in a similar vein and it's all quite good, even when he stretches beyond the street milieu which most readers might know him from. There's one particular sequence where Janson renders a needlessly complicated Rube Goldberg machine in motion that manages to work despite being static images. The writing by Morrison though, is not their finest. The M riff doesn't last as long as it could, and Mr. Whisper's turn in the latter half of the story from delicious creepy wraith to a cackling mass murderer who puts Batman in an easily escaped death trap feels like something of a letdown from the promise of the first half of the book. Gothic is good, but not, in my opinion, great. It's certainly worth checking out for Morrison fans however, and I imagine that someone well-versed in his latter Batman stuff might be able to find some real resonance between the two.

Green Arrow: The Longbow Hunters

For a long, long time, Longbow Hunters was THE Green Arrow story. It is to Green Arrow as TDKR is to Batman, deliberately so. Mike Grell wrote and drew the reinvention of the character from his role as the Justice League's resident limousine liberal to a gritty urban vigilante operating in Seattle over the course of these three issues, which he'd follow up with a subsequent ongoing. Going back to it, it certainly merits its reputation, but its far from timeless. Grell's art is unimpeachable absolutely incredible, with great splashes and spreads, subtle colors, and really great figure work. The narrative is almost so 80's it hurts though, revolving around West Coast serial killers, cocaine, the CIA and the Iran-Contra scandal, and the Yakuza, and it's hard to look back at some of this stuff without smirking. The story begins with a teenager strung out on tainted coke sprinting through a window in a scene that's right out of Reefer Madness. In the cold light of a day 30+ years later, parts of it look more than a little silly. The 80's-ness of it all doesn't stop with that stuff though, even the superhero elements smack of it. Green Arrow realizes that he's lost a step and has be to be shown a way forward by an Asian woman skilled in the martial arts (recalling Vic Sage's reinvention in the pages of The Question), and Black Canary gets captured and torture off-panel for the sake of showing that this is real crime now, not the superhero silliness they've dealt with before. The treatment of Black Canary here is pretty markedly heinous, it's a classic fridging and Grell's claims that he didn't intentionally imply sexual assault in his depiction of her torture is probably true, but still feels more than a little weak considering how he chose to render it.The final analysis is that this book is good, but it exists strictly in the frame of the 1980's. If you're a fan of Green Arrow, there are worse books to pick up, or if you're interested in that era of DC Comics it's more than worth it, but as a matter of general interest I wouldn't recommend it very highly.

SHIELD by Steranko

Jim Steranko is sort of the prodigy of the early Marvel years, a young guy who came up through the system, blossomed into an incredible talent, and then left the company, and by and large the industry, behind. He would go on to dabble in publishing, work in other mediums, and generally kick around as the prodigal son of Marvel Comics. This collection, of both his Nick Fury shorts in the pages of Strange Tales and the four issues he drew of the original Nick Fury solo series, charts Steranko's growth as an artist. The book starts off with Steranko working from Jack Kirby's layouts with Stan Lee's dialogue and writing, and Steranko might be the one guy in history for whom working off of Kirby's blueprints is clearly holding him back. The first third or so of this collection really isn't much to write home about, as Steranko is obviously constrained by someone else's style, and at the end of the day those early stories still read as somewhat uninspired pulp compared to the highlights of early Marvel. There are flashes though, of techniques and ideas, which foreshadow what Steranko is capable of, and when he finally takes over as solo writer/artist it's like he's been unleashed. He immediately has Nick Fury tear off his shirt and start throwing guys around over psychedelic effects. He writes out most of Kirby and Lee's frankly uninspired boys' club supporting cast, he makes Fury visibly older, wearier, but also so much cooler. It's the birth of Nick Fury as a distinctly comic book super spy.By the time he finishes wrapping up the previous writers' plotline with Hydra and Baron von Strucker, Steranko is firing on all cylinders. By the time it gets to Steranko's Fury solo series, he's somehow surpassed himself, turning in effects, panel structures, and weird stories which make the earlier installment about a suit-wearing Man from UNCLE knockoff and its strict six-panel layouts look absolutely fossilized.I can't recommend this collection highly enough for any fan of the artform, even if the stories themselves might not be everyone's cup of tear. It's truly incredible to watch Steranko emerge as an artist over the course of this single collection. The book itself has a few problems, it's not the most elegantly designed in its supporting materials and index, but the content of it more than outweighs that. It's great stuff.

#capsule reviews #comics

3 notes · View notes

warsofasoiaf · 5 years ago

Note

I would be interested in hearing about why you think Sanders is hopeless in the election? This is a non-trolling post, I liked him a lot in 2016 and have not been very impressed this time around. Since I have enjoyed your political take on things Id like to hear your reasoning a bit more. Its not a very strong field this time around it looks like. Thanks a lot for all you do!

In which I annoy everyone with my cynicism.

Well, let me digress a bit first to say what I want, because that informs who I think will be good in the office, and what I want may not be the same as what you (by you, I mean anyone reading this) want.

I’m of the belief that right now we actually need a executive who can lay the groundwork for solid anticorruption efforts. Corruption isn’t a thing that exists just for billionaires and super-PAC’s, we have policy being written by political donors, we have regulatory agencies in bed with the people they’re supposed to be regulating.

Similarly, the polarization of the country is producing an environment that’s not getting work done. We’re crafting policy where the goal is to maximize the gain to one side and the pain to the other. We’re looking for quick-fixes to pat ourselves on the back, so we can say we did something. That’s not conducive to long-term success.

Also, I think we’ve expanded the office of the Presidency far beyond its scope, and we need to reign it back in. The voter base has been looking to the Presidency to accomplish things, but the problem with executive action is that which can be done by it can be undone just as easily. That’s not conducive to long-term success. If we’re looking to lay the foundations for these efforts, we need to do it legislatively and we need to do it in a way where it doesn’t die off unfunded in the next electoral cycle. The United States needs Congress to be willing to stand in its role, not just once, but every day.

Finally, we’ve witnessed the rise in illiberal, anti-democratic regimes that have gained in power and popularity. Liberal democracy is on the back foot, we have illegal territory seizures in the South China Sea and Crimea, we’re seeing a rise in ethno-nationalist anti-immigrant violence both in Europe and the United States. We need a leader that takes this rise in both government and citizenry seriously, treats it as the threat that it is.

The problems I’m hoping to get fixed require clear-headedness and commitment, I think this is pretty self-evident. So with that, why don’t I like Sanders?

Bernie’s speech at George Washington University really clinched it for me that Bernie is not salvageable. His speech was an open slap in the face to any serious student of 20th century history, a half funhouse mirror/half snake oil pitch to support a vision where his tribe is the only salvation of humanity. It didn’t take itself seriously, it didn’t posture to say what it was, rather instead focusing on glorifying the tribe. If the thesis of your statement is: “How Democratic Socialism Is the Only Way to Defeat Oligarchy and Authoritarianism,” then you need to set out how it defeats those two, and how it doesn’t become the two. He was evasive on the first, downright contemptuous of the second. In this speech, the thesis was proven by its own premise. Democratic socialism will defeat oligarchy and authoritarianism because democratic socialism is the cure for oligarchy and authoritarianism.

Again, I understand the strategy cynically. Cold War containment and rollback types latched on to the idea of American exceptionalism, the idea that the American national mythos of liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism, democracy and laissez-faire economics was unique, and the duty of America was to promote this ideology and transform the world, hearkening back to the Gettysberg Address and Abraham Lincoln’s idea that “the government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the Earth.” They latched onto this idea to support nation-building as support against the Soviet Union. People who’ve studied the Cold War know the truth behind this myth, the US had failed nation-building attempts across the world and supported plenty of bloody-handed, iron-fisted dictators as long as they were anti-Communist, from Syngmon Rhee in South Korea to Shah Reza Pahlavi in Iran to Papa Doc Duvalier in Haiti. Sanders has his own version of exceptionalism, identified by tribe instead of nation, where the commitment of democracy, social welfare, and built community of adherents, but it’s still the same illusion, whether it was Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Pol Pot in Cambodia, or Klement Gottwald in Czechoslovakia. Far from being the only way to stop authoritarianism and oligarchy, democratic socialism has promoted authoritarianism and oligarchy across the world. The idea of exceptionalism is as much a myth now as it was then. No serious consideration can be possible if you don’t think about how you can fail and what you can do to prevent failure, as much as possible. The George W. Bush administration taught us that leaping without looking from a policy standpoint gets us in a worse place than when we started.

If he’s not going to take the rise of authoritarianism and oligarchy seriously, I’m not going to take him seriously.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

#modern politics #bernie sanders

42 notes · View notes

grimnoire87 · 5 years ago

Text

I feel like people need to understand U.S. history to get why American minorities are very stressed about the possibility of a draft or a war with Iran. It is extremely frustrating to see how few people actually put effort into learning this even though they regularly make general criticisms about the US. Even a basic comprehension of U.S. current events would prepare someone to understand this. White Americans might be victimizing themselves but the rest of us are worried for a different reason and it needs to be recognized. And if you recognize it you probably can also understand why we bristle at the implication that we only benefit from a system that was built around enslaving or killing us or people who look like us, or why its so wrong to equate Soleimani to a black victim of police brutality.

People are able to have generalized discussions of US white supremacy and Imperialism but only in a way that reflects the last 50 years and only in a manner that treats it as just an external problem that never effects us here. Which is why folks sound so tone deaf when they talk about "Americans".

U.S. white supremacy was not built around fascism or the desire to police the rest of the world. Nor is Imperialism a US creation. Both takes are neo liberal ways to avoid responsibility and completely ahistorical.

Some context (warning, this will be a long post and might get redundant at times but I promise that there is a reason for it.):

Edited because I finally figured out how to install a break

The U.S. was, at one point, and English colony. It was "The New World" aka a just another colony in a long line European Imperialism. French, Spanish, and Dutch "explorers" also were making a mark on the continent. They were using and killing indigenous people and importing enslaved black people. Black and Native people have always been the first and most longstanding victims of U.S. agression. After the Revolutionary War, the new U.S. continued to expand, engaging in genocide against Black and Native peoples for hundreds if years. While the U.S. would eventually seek to expand its borders on the continent, in the beginning it was rather isolationist in regards to world affairs. Like Australia, their white supremacy was almost entirely "local" due to the nature of its origin, it wasn't powerful enough to take over entire countries on the other side of the world but it was powerful enough to murder and enslave people here .

White supremacy was central to that white American identity. American Exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny (and US Imperialism in general) sprung from this new identity as a "White Christian Nation". Its similar to how the "White Man's Burden" was used to justify British Imperialism in Africa and Asia.

That was a tangent but...anyways. U.S. identity has always been fostered by the idea of the "other". For whiteness to function it needs an other or a scapegoat. And how does this relate to the fear if another war? Well all you have to look at the Civil War.

Black people were made into scapegoats on both sides. The Draft Riots were race riots where Irish draftees went out and burned a black orphanage and killed men, women and children. It got worse after that war ended. Black people in the North were scapegoated for the war, draft, and taking lower paying jobs. In the South, they were scapegoated for the loss of the economic and political power that came from slavery. Thus white resentment led to black people being tortured and terrorized by their white neighbors. They hunted us. This would be a common pattern, and would happen anytime white people felt anxiety over a war, economic problems, loss of political power, etc. They would ride out and sooner or later a black person, family, or entire town would be lynched. We were surrounded by a majority who could do what they wanted to us.

It was the same thing after WWI. Black vets would come home and wind up being the sole defense against white mobs numbering in the hundreds. The Red Summer consisted of massacre after massacre. There were no consequences for the perpetrators. Survivors were put in camps or prison, none would be compensated. And yes, by this point U.S. imperialism had allowed white Americans to continue to slaughter Natives and steal Mexico, and go beyond its shores to start wars to see which Imperialist nation could colonize where.

The U.S. has loved scapegoating "others" to justify limiting rights, expanding its borders, taking resources and supporting white supremacy. It was as American as apple pie. Look at the Japanese Internment. When Timothy McVeigh committed the Oklahoma City bombing, no one blamed white fundamentalists. He was seen as an individual.

That's not what happened in 2001. On Sept. 11, 2001, after a cowardly attack that killed close to 3,000, white anxiety would lead to the scapegoating of another community in a manner similar to how black people were scapegoated for the Civil War. It didn't matter that this mass murder was orchestrated by Saudi Arabia, "9/11 was committed by Muslims", therefore it was open season. Regardless of the fact that Muslims died in the attack and were the primary victims of these terrorist groups in the Middle East. They were at fault simply because they appeared to be "Muslim". And the US already had an issue with Islam because of its role in black civil rights. So that attack just made it worse and shifted the vitriol away from black Muslims and towards all Muslims. Folks would go out and hunt for Muslims and people would justify it. Mosques were being targeted in a manner similar to black churches in the South. They were criminalized into terrorists. And the Iraq War would only make this worse and create refugees that would come here and be scapegoated all over again. After the Pulse shooting white people railed against Muslims and Black Lives Matter, but Dylann Roof was just one person.

We have had laws passed that scrapped civil liberties, Trump had a Muslim travel ban list, ICE is actively detaining and deporting brown and black people, and modern weaponry and lax gun laws allow people to commit mass murder on a scale never seen before. White supremacists and Islamophobes have already killed people for "looking like Muslims". Black people are being killed by the thousands every year and we have to convince people we don't deserve to be murdered. People going out and assaulting/killing Jewish people. There is a lot to be anxious about over because white American aggression is not purely an external problem.

White anxiety and scapegoating gets people killed. Daily. And white Americans (just like Europeans) LOVE to take their frustrations out on a scapegoats and always have. Because U.S. white supremacy is built around the idea that whiteness entitles you to privilege and if you lack it than its someone else's fault and you have the right to hurt them for it.

And that is a very stressful reality when you are a minority surrounded by people with the privilege and power to harm you whenever they feel a little anxious. Especially when you have someone like Trump in power (unlike Obama he surrounded himself with white supremacists, courts them, and sics them on people). It doesn't matter whether there is a war or just an escalation of tensions. No matter whether there is a draft or not, you always be vulnerable to a white supremacist with an assault rifle who can walk into a Mosque and murder you by the dozen. U.S. history has set a precedent.

And imagine the horror of a draft! Imagine everyone between the ages of 18-35 being told they are in a lottery and if picked have to go to war (and potentially commit war crimes) or go to jail in a country that loves for profit prisons, locks up minorities, kills black and Native detainees and pardons people who murder prisoners of war. Use common sense. It is perfectly reasonable to be nervous about a draft here and you can't call people immoral for joining the military and then turn around and call kids selfish for being scared of being forced to do so. And a draft would only fan the flames of white resentment here just like what happened during the earlier drafts. There would be war crimes against Iranians, for sure. A draft would be awful. No one should be joking about it. It would be horrifying.

I was vague about it before because I figured that asking for empathy would be enough but it isn't. A lot of people talking about the Suleiman strike are far removed from U.S. white supremacy and don't necessarily understand our anxieties and it shows in how they talk about the situation and who "benefits". The fact that they think American minorities (especially Muslims) won't face *any* backlash or consequences for Trump's actions here is evidence enough.

This isn't an attempt to paint Americans into the victim of this situation with Iran. To do so would be despicable. And joking about it is in poor taste and can come off as cruel even if US minorities do it to cope with our reality here.

But acknowledging that U.S. minorities (including Iranian and Iraqi immigrants and refugees) will be at risk isn't taking away from Iranians or Iraqis in the Middle East. American minorities are here because of U.S. and European Imperialism. And it is a fact that Imperialism will lead to more deaths in an already traumatized region and it is a fact that white supremacy will put people in a precarious position here where they are more vulnerable to white aggression all year round. Both are true. Its not a competition and seeing US minorities talk about it shouldn't be bothering you because both are symptoms of the same problem.

Kind of a tl;dr: American minorities aren't being selfish (or US centric) by talking about their fears of war with Iran and a draft because many will be more vulnerable than they already are and U.S. history has demonstrated why these fears are valid. Learn it. It explains a lot of why we do what we do. Also a draft would terrible for Americans and devastating for Iranians (i.e. look at Vietnam). There us a difference between white Americans victimizing themselves and American PoC being worried about what this situation means for them. Learn the difference; those disclaimers are necessary for a reason. You dont show someone empathy by denying it to others, I wish more progressives figured this out. Its not a competition or ideological chess. People could and probably will die and its scary to be surrounded by angry white people just looking for an excuse (like a war).

#U.s. imperialism #long post #very long post #white supremacy #us history #antiblackness #islamophobia #racism #current events

2 notes · View notes

alexsmitposts · 5 years ago

Photo

BC: Gold or Gunfire: Hedging Against the Collapse of the Dollar BC stands for NEO’s Banned Classic. This article was originally published by our journal on 27.10.14. For some reason, this article is missing from Google search results. Since this article remains pretty relevant to those geopolitical events that are taking place on the geopolitical stage today, we deem it possible to present it to our readers once again. Should it go missing again, you may be confident that you will see it republished by NEO once more, should it still remain relevant by that time. A global economic collapse has become unavoidable, said former chief economist of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) William White in response to the BIS’ quarterly report in September 2013. Experts forecast that a global economic collapse may occur, overnight, some time at the end of 2014 or in 2015. The fact that private interests are holding the US Federal Reserve and the Central Bank of England as well as the Bretton Woods institutions in a state of capture makes it improbable that the governments of the USA, UK and EU could prevent a collapse. Their policies have remained largely unchanged since early 2013, when the Deputy Governor of China’s National Bank, Yi Gang, stressed that China does not look forward to an economic war, but that it is prepared for it. BRICS member states have since then capitalized the BRICS Development Bank; the US/UK axis and the EU have launched a war of sanctions against Russia and a civil war in Ukraine. In 2014, China began opening its banking sector for foreign investments and banking at an unprecedented scale; Australia is in a quagmire between US pressure and the trend to make use of attractive and safer Chinese opportunities. Thailand, Malaysia and other economies are increasingly encouraging their traders and investors to study the Chinese market. With the Bretton Woods system at the brink of possible collapse and conflicts looming, gold and the new gold-based economies are catching the, in some cases more, in some cases less hesitant attention of governments worldwide. The trend is, however reluctantly it is accepted, impossible to ignore. China overtook the U.S.’ as the world’s leading economy measured in buying power and is poised to become No.1 measured in GDP within a bout one year too, reports the IMF. Avoiding Confusion of Principles. Fiat vs. Gold. Fiat currencies are not necessarily more unstable than commodity-backed currencies. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Commodities, for example gold, have an inherent value due to the physical presence and the value of labor that has to be invested in mining and refining gold. One problem with gold is that it is as finite as other commodities and that it is not equally distributed across the globe. Gold is, in other words, no panacea against resource-driven geopolitics and conflict. Fiat currencies are, in principle, not finite. To infinitely print fiat currency without backing it with values like commodities, goods, labor force, or by means of a production potential implies that powers with greater military might may be tempted to force others to accept an, in principle, valueless fiat currency that could as well be counterfeit. The US, its militarily backed geopolitics and the fact that it repeatedly forced other nations like Iraq to either accept the dollar for international settlements or face war, while the US is basically producing counterfeit to settle its bills; the use of euphemisms like quantitative easing to cover-up a failed counterfeit-like policy is a good example for fiat currencies inherent problems and risks. While fiat currencies are not necessarily better or worse than gold-backed systems, the greatest problem with using fiat currencies for economic settlements between nations is rather the fact that some national banks are privately-owned; That is, that its owners are part of rogue networks which hold the government in a state of capture. The same holds true with regard to the Bretton Woods institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. Other national economies run well on fiat currencies, provided that the national bank is actually national and that the currency is not created as debt. The current “run” for gold is, in other words, not caused by inherent and superior advantages of gold-backed economies, but rather by the conflict-based dynamics of current international politics. An Illusion that a Market under Pressure can retain Liquidity. The realistically pessimistic Quarterly Report of the Bank for International Settlements, in September 2013, pointed at the US Federal Reserve Bank’s and European Central Bank’s quantitative easing as one of the primary factors which could cause a global economic collapse. Experts agreed that the Federal Reserve and the European Central Banks had lost control over the deluge of money and debt which they create. The BIS report noted, in so many words, that it had become impossible for the US Federal Reserve and the European Central Banks to get the paste back into the tube again while the, at that time, Federal Reserve Governor Ben Bernanke continued stepping on the tube. The former BIS Chief Economist William White warned, unequivocally, that the world is headed for an unavoidable global economic crash. White noted that the global credit bubble was about to burst and that the percentage level of extreme risk loans was at an all-times-high of 45 percent in the middle of 2013. That is, the interest for extreme risk loans was ten percent higher than it was at the onset of the global economic crisis in 2007. Speaking with The Telegraph, White added that the situation in 2013 was worse that it was prior to the crash of Lehmann Brothers. The newspaper quoted White as saying “All the previous imbalances are still there. Total public and private debt levels are 30 percent higher as a share of GDP in the advanced economies than they were then, and we have added a whole new problem with bubbles in emerging markets that are embedding in a boom bust cycle”. White forecast that an economic collapse could come overnight, adding that the trouble is, that the US’ financial policy has become unpredictable, and that it is an illusion to believe that a market under stress can retain its liquidity. US liquidity problems also became obvious in 2013, when the Federal Reserve rejected German auditors who had come to audit Germany’s gold reserves in the United States. In 2013, Germany, like many others, began hedging against the expected economic crash by attempting to repatriate the lion share of its gold reserves. The German Federal Bank and the government responded to the rejection by demanding the repatriation of the German gold from the US to Germany. The U.S. responded by informing Germany that it only could deliver the gold back in portions, final delivery by 2020. The US has since begun delivering portions, but informed the German Federal Bank that it had to smelt the bars before delivery. The gold bars Germany has since received could, in other words, not be identified by the serial numbers. The re-refinement process also removed the chemical fingerprint by which the gold otherwise could have been identified as being the gold Germany had deposited in the United States. It could, in other words, just as well have received gold that was stolen from Libya in 2011. An ironic article, entitled “Germany’s Gold and the Fed for Dummies” describes the situation by using an allegory. A biker mugs the owner of a Ferrari, crushes his bones, then steals the car, saying, “look how dangerous the world is, let me take care of that beautiful Ferrari for you”. When the owner has recovered and asks to get his car back he’s first rejected. After that, he’s allowed to see the engine, without serial number, then a steering wheel, and at the end he gets back spare parts which may, or may not come form his car. Final part plus car key to be delivered in seven years. Needless to say that the US lacks liquidity. Many analysts note that the US sold off most of the gold it was supposed to keep in store for other nations. The theft could be covered up as long as it was possible to maintain the status quo of the (f)ailing Bretton Woods system. China prepared for an Economic War. The Deputy Governor of China’s National Bank, Yi Gang, stated earlier that year, that China was fully prepared to face a currency war, if necessary. The Chinese Xinhua news agency quoted Yi Gang as saying: “China is fully prepared in terms of monetary policies and other mechanisms, to deal with a possible currency war, and China will take full account of the quantitative easing policy conducted by the central banks of some countries”. China has since then, prudently, begun to shed US dollars by using dollars to secure valuable assets in western economies, expanded the scope of its import of strategic resources, invested in partnerships to secure resources and production partnerships in Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, and all of that at a previously unprecedented scale. While the US, the United Kingdom and the EU continued their “quantitative easing”, their exit strategy to escape the looming collapse was, generally speaking, the creation of conflict as a means to perpetuate that failing glorious New American Century a little bit longer. The US/U K’s project to prevent the building of the Iran – Iraq – Syria gas pipeline with the goal to create insecurity about the delivery of Iranian gas to Europe; The deep state involvement in manufacturing the crisis in Ukraine, aiming at the creation of insecurity about the delivery of Russian gas to Europe; The attempt to force Europe into a dependency on US -American shale gas and shale oil deliveries while containing Moscow; All of the above are illegitimate responses to legitimate economic problems. They are also, responses which are inherently dangerous and inherently unlikely to result in a successful prevention or at least mitigation of a global economic meltdown and the end of the Bretton Woods monetary system. Also in 2013, while experts warned that a global economic collapse had become unavoidable and while others already noted that the US/UK failure to win the Syria war by July 2012 would lead to a conflict in Ukraine, the BRICS member states met on the sidelines of the G20 in St. Petersburg, Russia, and agreed to establish a BRICS Development Bank as complement to the IMF and World Bank systems. In July 2014, the BRICS Development Bank was capitalized with 100 billion US dollar. Moreover, the conflict in Ukraine had brought Russia and China closer together with regard to cooperation in the economic sector, the energy sector, as well as with regard to security. China’s Opening: Gravitating towards the New, Gold-backed Economies. China responded to the plausibility of the global economic crash by relatively swift and comprehensive deregulation with regard to foreign investment and trade. China was, however, prudent enough to secure the State’s control over the national economy and over the currency. China’s opening did not go unnoticed. In July 2014, the Assistant Governor of the Financial Market Operations Group of the Bank of Thailand (BOT), Chantarvan Sucharitakul, for example, held a seminar for Thai investors and businessmen. Chantarvan encouraged Thai investors, saying that they should investigate the advantages of the use of the yuan in terms of payments when doing business with China. Chantarvan said: “Presently the use of the Chinese yuan in Thailand is not widespread since only 1 percent of the total14 percent of Thailand’s trade activities with China is traded by using the renminbi (RNB)… However, this rate is increasing fast, and therefore Thai investors should learn how to use the additional trading channel because the yuan’s importance and popularity will increase in the future even though it is not widely accepted and fully liberated at the moment”. Similar developments are seen in Malaysia, Indonesia and several other Asian countries. This development does not happen without stiff US resistance. Thailand went through a severe crisis in 2014, when popular opposition against the government of Yingluck Shinavatra and the government’s defiance with regard to passing an amnesty law for her brother Taksin Shinawatra developed into a protracted standoff and ultimately a majority-backed intervention by Thailand’s military. Former PM Taksin Shinawatra, who admitted that he was governing the country from abroad via his sister Yingluck, fled Thailand after he was sentenced on charges of corruption. The development was met with a failed attempt to create a civil war in Thailand, backed by Wall Street and London elites and the imposition of US sanctions. The United States as well as Wall Street and City of London lobbies are less blunt when it comes to nations like Australia. Arguably, the fact that a predominantly Caucasian populated/dominated nation like Australia is treated with a soft-power approach while the US/UK perceive it as more legitimate to attempt to subvert Thailand by means of violence is a sign of the entrenched racism that is observable in the UK as well as in the USA. Soft power or not; US pressure against Australia’s attempt to act in the best interest of Australians is putting the Australian government into a quagmire. In October 2014, Australian journalist Michelle Grattan would report that senior Australian cabinet members are believed to be divided over whether Australia should sign up to an internationally funded infrastructure development bank that China is set to launch in November 2014. Grattan noted that: “Australia has been under pressure from the United States not to participate in the new bank. … The Chinese plan is being viewed internationally in the wider geopolitical context of Chinese-US competition in the region. The Americans, who see the bank as potentially a way of China increasing its clout with countries in southeast Asia, have been strongly lobbying to keep out of it”. China, for its part, announced that it would offer funds to underdeveloped countries in the region for projects in the energy, telecommunication and transport sectors. China stated that it will initially fund the regional development bank with 50 billion US dollar, not yuan or the renminbi. The signals are clear. China is one of the greatest owners of US debt and dollars. China is shedding the dollar as fast, and as much of it as it can without tipping the (f)ailing dollar economies over the edge. Most importantly, China is investing these dollars in the strategic development of regional partnerships by aiding the economies of weaker nations like Laos, by opening its markets for investors and traders from Thailand, Malaysia, Australia, by fostering energy and security cooperation with Russia, by using Hong Kong as the basis for its economic opening. The 2014 conflict about political self-determination in Hong Kong must be seen within the perspective of China’s prudent, but rapid opening of its economy for foreign capital. Not unsurprisingly, it were the National Endowment for Democracy, the soft-power wing of the US State Department and the CIA which supported Hong Kong’s “Occupy Central” movement. The stage is set for a transition, whether it comes in the form of an overnight collapse or not. The one most significant driver of this transition is, arguably, not the inherent weakness of the US/UK’s and the Bretton Woods institutions debt-based monetary and economic system. The primary driver is, arguably, the fact that the governments of countries like Venezuela, Mozambique, Laos, Myanmar, and others perceive the soft-power approach of China as much less problematic and above all much less lethal and devastating than the envisioned “New American Century”. It’s like the choice between gold and gunfire. Dr. Christof Lehmann an independent political consultant on conflict and conflict resolution and the founder and editor in chief of nsnbc, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

1 note · View note

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

How Many Republicans Are There In America

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-many-republicans-are-there-in-america/

How Many Republicans Are There In America

Republican Presidents Of The 20th Century

Rep. Schiff: Only Question Is How Many In GOP Will Support Impeachment | Morning Joe | MSNBC

Theodore Roosevelt, 26th, 19011909: The “Trust Buster” is considered one of America’s greatest presidents. He was charismatic and larger than life. He was;also the youngest of all the presidents, entering office at age 42. In;contrast to later Republican presidents, Roosevelt fought hard to limit the powers of large oil and railroad companies.

William H. Taft, 27th, 19091913: Taft may be best known for supporting “Dollar Diplomacy,” the idea that US foreign policy should provide stability with the ultimate goal of promoting American commercial ventures. He was the only president who served as a justice of the Supreme Court .

Warren G. Harding, 29th, 19211923: Harding served just one day shy of three years, dying of a heart attack while in office. His presidency saw the end of World War I but was marked by scandals involving bribery, fraud, and conspiracy.

Reality Check : The Democrats Legislative Fix Will Never Happenand Doesnt Even Touch The Real Threats

Its understandable why Democrats have ascribed a life-or-death quality to S. 1, the For the People bill that would impose a wide range of requirements on state voting procedures. The dozensor hundredsof provisions enacted by Republican state legislatures and governors represent a determination to ensure that the GOP thumb will be on the scale at every step of the voting process. The proposed law would roll that back on a national level by imposing a raft of requirements on statesno excuse absentee voting, more days and hours to votebut would also include public financing of campaigns, independent redistricting commissions and compulsory release of presidential candidates tax returns.

There are all sorts of Constitutional questions posed by these ideas. But theres a more fundamental issue here: The Constitutional clause on which the Democrats are relyingArticle I, Section 4, Clause 1gives Congress significant power over Congressional elections, but none over elections for state offices or the choosing of Presidential electors.

Poll Finds Startling Difference In Vaccinations Among Us Republicans And Democrats

A Washington Post-ABC News poll has found a startling difference between Democrats and Republicans as it relates to COVID-19;vaccination.;The poll found that while 86% of Democrats have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine shot, only 45% of Republicans;have.

In addition, the survey found;that while;only;6% of Democrats said they would;probably;decline;the vaccine, 47% of Republicans;said they;would;probably not;be inoculated.;

The poll also found that;60% of unvaccinated Americans believe the U.S. is;exaggerating;the dangers of;the;COVID-19;delta variant,;while;18% of the unvaccinated say the government is accurately describing the variants risks.

However, 64% of vaccinated Americans believe the government is accurately describing the dangers of the;delta variant.

Iran fighting COVID 5th wave The variant is having a;global impact.;Irans;President;Hassan Rouhani;has warned that the country is on the brink of a fifth wave of;a COVID-19 outbreak.;The;delta variant of the virus, first;identified;in India, is;largely;responsible;for the;rising number of hospitalizations and deaths in Iran, officials say.

All;non-essential businesses have been ordered;closed;in 275 cities, including Tehran, the capital.;Travel has also been restricted between cities that are;experiencing;high infection rates.

Reports say only about 5% of Iranians have been vaccinated.;

Recommended Reading: Donald Trump Saying Republicans Are Dumb

Read Also: Nancy Pelosi Voting Record Govtrack

Past Jumps In Party Affiliations

The bump in Democratic affiliation following Biden’s inauguration mirrors that of former President Barack Obama’s first term, Jones said.

“That was really the high point that we’ve seen; kind of the 2006-2009 period, when really the majority of Americans either identified as Democrats outright or were independents but they leaned toward the party,” he said.;”Our data on this only goes back to the ’90s, but it’s pretty much the only time we consistently had one party with the majority of Americans on their side.”

Republican advantages, though rarer and more short-lived, followed the Gulf War in 1991 when George H.W. Bush was in office and the 9/11 terrorist attacks during President George W. Bush’s term, according to Gallup. More people also reported GOP affiliation after the 1994, 2010 and 2014 midterm elections.

Whether the Republican Party can regain advantage during the 2022 midterm elections may rely on the successes of the Biden administration, according to Jones.

“A lot of it is going to depend on how things go over the course of the year. If things get better with the coronavirus and the economy bounces back and a lot of people expect Biden can keep relatively strong approval ratings, then that will be better for the Democrats,” Jones said.;”But if things start to get worse unemployment goes up or coronavirus gets worse; then his approval is going to go down. It’s going to make things a lot better for the Republican Party for the midterm next year.”

Democrats Think Many Republicans Sincere And Point To Policy

Democrats, however, were somewhat more generous in their answers.;;More than four in ten Democratic voters ; felt that most Republican voters had the countrys best interests at heart . ;And many tried their best to answer from the others perspective. A 45-year-old male voter from Ohio imagined that as a Republican, he was motivated by Republicans harsh stance on immigration; standing up for the 2nd Amendment; promised tax cuts.;;A 30-year-old woman from Colorado felt that Republican votes reflected the desires to stop abortion stop gay marriage from ruining our country and give us our coal jobs back.

Other Democrats felt that their opponents were mostly motivated by the GOPs opposition to Obamacare, lower taxes and to support a party that reduced unemployment.;

Also Check: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

Gallup: Democrats Now Outnumber Republicans By 9 Percentage Points Thanks To Independents

I think what we have to do as a party is battle the damage to the Democratic brand, Democratic National Committee Chairman Jamie Harrison said on The Daily Beasts . Gallup reported Wednesday that, at least relatively speaking, the Democratic brand is doing pretty good.

In the first quarter of 2021, 49 percent of U.S. adults identified as Democrats or independents with Democratic leanings, versus 40 percent for Republicans and GOP leaders, Gallup said. The 9-percentage-point Democratic advantage is the largest Gallup has measured since the fourth quarter of 2012. In recent years, Democratic advantages have typically been between 4 and 6 percentage points.

New Gallup polling finds that in the first quarter of 2021, an average of 49% of Americans identify with/lean toward the Democratic Party, versus 40 percent for Republicans.

Thats the largest gap since 2012:

Greg Sargent

Party identification, polled on every Gallup survey, is something that we think is important to track to give a sense to the relevant strength of the two parties at any one point in time and how party preferences are responding to events,Gallup senior editor Jeff Jones told USA Today.

Related Content

Read Also: Did Trump Say Republicans Are Stupid

Nearly A Third Of Young Americans Say That Politics Has Gotten In The Way Of A Friendship; Differences Of Opinion On Race

Thirty-one percent of young Americans, but 37% of young Biden voters and 32% of young Trump voters say that politics has gotten in the way of a friendship before. Gender is not a strong predictor of whether or not politics has invaded personal space, but race and ethnicity are. Young whites are more likely than young Blacks to say that politics has gotten in the way–and nearly half of white Biden voters say politics has negatively impacted a friendship; 30% of white Trump voters say the same.

When young Americans were asked whether a difference of opinion on several political issues might impact a friendship, 44% of all young Americans said that they could not be friends with someone who disagreed with them on race relations. Sixty percent of Biden voters agreed with this sentiment, as did a majority of women and Blacks . Americans between 18 and 24 were more likely than those slightly older to feel that race relations would cause a problem with friendships. Differences of opinion on whether or not to support Trump was an issue for slightly more than a third , followed by immigration , police reform , abortion , climate change , and guns .

Democrats Return The Favor: Republicans Uninformed Or Self

The 429 Democratic voters in our sample returned the favor and raised many of the same themes. Democrats inferred that Republicans must be VERY ill-informed, or that Fox news told me to vote for Republicans.;;Or that Republicans are uneducated and misguided people guided by what the media is feeding them.

Many also attributed votes to individual self-interest whereas GOP voters feel Democrats want free stuff, many Democrats believe Republicans think that I got mine and dont want the libs to take it away, or that some day I will be rich and then I can get the benefits that rich people get now.

Many used the question to express their anger and outrage at the other side.;;Rather than really try to take the position of their opponents, they said things like, I like a dictatorial system of Government, Im a racist, I hate non-whites.;

Recommended Reading: Dems Voting For Trump

Fast Facts About Americas Governors

Overview

There were eleven gubernatorial races in 2020 and the overall theme was status quo. Nine of the eleven races featured incumbents running for re-electionand all 9 incumbents won. As a result, Republicans held onto governorships in Indiana , Missouri , New Hampshire , North Dakota , Vermont , and West Virginia . Democratic incumbents won in Delaware , North Carolina , and Washington .

Two states, Montana and Utah, held races for open seats. In Utah, Republicans easily held onto the seat, with Lieutenant Governor Spencer Cox comfortably winning the race to succeed retiring Governor Gary Herbert . The only seat to change party was in Montana, where Representative Greg Gianforte defeated Lieutenant Governor Mike Cooney to take over for the term-limited Governor Steve Bullock .

With that lone pickup, Republicans now hold 27 of the nations governorships, with Democrats holding 23.

Below are some fast facts about the nations 50 governors.

27 Republicans23 Democrats

The Republican Party picked up one seat in the 2020 elections, in Montana. There are currently no Independent or third party governors in the U.S.

;;* Nebraska has a unicameral, non-partisan legislature

** In Alaska, Republicans have a majority in the House of Representatives, buta coalition of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans have gained effective control

Gender

Race

1 Mormon1 Episcopalian

Seven governors have served in the Armed Forces.

Average: 58.7

Youngest : 40

Oldest : 74

Taking The Perspective Of Others Proved To Be Really Hard

The divide in the United States is wide, and one indication of that is how difficult our question proved for many thoughtful citizens. A 77-year-old Republican woman from Pennsylvania was typical of the voters who struggled with this question, telling us, This is really hard for me to even try to think like a devilcrat!, I am sorry but I in all honesty cannot answer this question. I cannot even wrap my mind around any reason they would be good for this country.

Similarly, a 53-year-old Republican from Virginia said, I honestly cannot even pretend to be a Democrat and try to come up with anything positive at all, but, I guess they would vote Democrat because they are illegal immigrants and they are promised many benefits to voting for that party. Also, just to follow what others are doing. And third would be just because they hate Trump so much. The picture she paints of the typical Democratic voter being an immigrant, who goes along with their party or simply hates Trump will seem like a strange caricature to most Democratic voters. But her answer seems to lack the animus of many.;;

Democrats struggled just as much as Republicans. A 33-year-old woman from California told said, i really am going to have a hard time doing this but then offered that Republicans are morally right as in values, going to protect us from terrorest and immigrants, going to create jobs.

Read Also: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

Young Americans Are Significantly More Likely To Be Politically Engaged Than They Were A Decade Ago; A Sharp Increase In Progressive Political Values Marked Since 2016

Less than one year after Barack Obamas election, 24% of young Americans considered themselves to be politically active . Twelve years later, we find the share of politically active Americans increased by half and now 36% are politically active. The most politically active among this cohort are young Blacks .;

Over the last five years, on a host of issues ranging from health care, to climate, immigration, poverty, and affirmative action–young Americans are increasingly more likely to favor government intervention. For example, we found:

A 19-point increase in agreement with the statement Qualified minorities should be given special preferences in hiring and education .

An 18-point increase in agreement with the statement Government should do more to curb climate change, even at the expense of economic growth .

A 16-point increase since 2016 in agreement with The government should spend more to reduce poverty .

A 16-point increase in Basic health insurance is a right for all people, and if someone has no means of paying for it, the government should provide it .

An 8-point increase in agreement with Recent immigration into this country has done more good than harm .

Presidential Ballot Access 2020

There were 21 candidates on the ballot each in Vermont and Colorado, more than in any other state. Arkansas and Louisiana came in second, with 13 candidates each. Twelve states featured only three candidates on the ballot.

The following map shows the number of presidential candidates on the ballot in 2020 in each state.

For information from previously presidential election years, click “” below.

Public opinion on the two-party system In 2017, Gary Johnson, a former Libertarian Party candidate for president, claimed that “the largest group of American voters are actually neither Democrats or Republicans” and “the overwhelming majority would like to have more choices than just the two ‘major’ parties.”Was Johnson correct about party affiliation and public opinion on the two-party system? Read Ballotpedia’s fact check Â»

Read Also: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

0 notes

newstfionline · 3 years ago

Text

Wednesday, June 23, 2021

Mapping quest edges past 20% of global ocean floor (BBC) The quest to compile the definitive map of Earth’s ocean floor has edged a little nearer to completion. Modern measurements of the depth and shape of the seabed now encompass 20.6% of the total area under water. It’s only a small increase from last year (19%); but like everyone else, the Nippon Foundation-GEBCO Seabed 2030 Project has had cope with a pandemic. The extra 1.6% is an expanse of ocean bottom that equated to about half the size of the United States. The achievement to date still leaves, of course, four-fifths of Earth’s oceans without a contemporary depth sounding.

Watchdog: Nursing home deaths up 32% in 2020 amid pandemic (AP) Deaths among Medicare patients in nursing homes soared by 32% last year, with two devastating spikes eight months apart, a government watchdog reported Tuesday in the most comprehensive look yet at the ravages of COVID-19 among its most vulnerable victims. The report from the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services found that about 4 in 10 Medicare recipients in nursing homes had or likely had COVID-19 in 2020, and that deaths overall jumped by 169,291 from the previous year, before the coronavirus appeared. “We knew this was going to be bad, but I don’t think even those of us who work in this area thought it was going to be this bad,” said Harvard health policy professor David Grabowski, a nationally recognized expert on long-term care, who reviewed the report for The Associated Press. “This was not individuals who were going to die anyway,” Grabowski added. “We are talking about a really big number of excess deaths.”

Brazil passes half a million COVID-19 deaths, experts warn of worse ahead (Reuters) Brazil’s death toll from COVID-19 surpassed 500,000 on Saturday as experts warn that the world’s second-deadliest outbreak may worsen. Only 11% of Brazilians have been fully vaccinated and epidemiologists warn that, with winter arriving in the southern hemisphere and new variants of the coronavirus circulating, deaths will continue to mount even if immunizations gain steam. Brazil has registered 500,800 deaths from 17,883,750 confirmed COVID-19 cases, according to Health Ministry data on Saturday, the worst official death toll outside the United States.

Spanish prime minister says Catalan separatists convicted of sedition will be pardoned (Washington Post) Calling it a “huge step toward reconciliation,” Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said his cabinet on Tuesday will approve pardons for nine separatists from Catalonia who were convicted of sedition for their role in a 2017 independence bid. The decision, opposed by a slight majority of Spaniards as well as the country’s Supreme Court, will mark the biggest political shift from the central government toward Catalonia since the chaotic referendum on independence four years ago. The move is aimed at defusing tensions in what has become Spain’s greatest political crisis since the transition to democracy after the death of dictator Francisco Franco in 1975. For some Catalans, the nine jailed leaders have become an emotional symbol for what they say is a right denied by Madrid to choose their region’s destiny. But it is unclear how dramatically the pardons will change the dynamic. Some pro-independence figures in Catalonia say the only proper peace offering is full amnesty—which would strike the crimes from the record, something that the pardons will not do.

Berlin expands bike lanes as COVID cycling boom continues (Reuters) Berlin is making permanent the extra bike lanes it added during coronavirus lockdowns as it seeks to support the cycling boom that started in the pandemic. The German capital has marked about 25 km (15 miles) of extra "pop-up" bike lanes since COVID-19 hit in 2020 as commuters switched to cycling to avoid crowded public transport. Other European cities—like Paris and London—have also been adding bike paths. The German Cyclists Association (ADFC) says bike traffic rose by 25% in Berlin due to the temporary lanes and the pandemic.

Russians’ return boosts Turkish tourism prospects (Reuters) Thousands of Russian tourists began arriving in Turkey on Tuesday, boosting hopes for its tourism sector after a two-month suspension in flights imposed by Moscow due to concerns about a surge in COVID-19 cases in April. Turkey’s tourism prospects have been revived by a sharp fall in daily coronavirus cases to around 5,000 from a peak of more than 60,000 two months ago, as well as an acceleration in vaccinations to more than 1 million a day. The first plane arrived in Antalya from Moscow around dawn, carrying 132 passengers. Some 12,000 Russians were expected to arrive on 44 planes in the Mediterranean tourist hub of Antalya on Tuesday, state-owned Anadolu news agency said.

Iran president-elect takes hard line, refuses to meet Biden (AP) Iran’s president-elect staked out a hard-line position Monday in his first remarks since his landslide election victory, rejecting the possibility of meeting with President Joe Biden or negotiating Tehran’s ballistic missile program and support of regional militias. The comments by Ebrahim Raisi offered a blunt preview of how Iran might deal with the wider world in the next four years as it enters a new stage in negotiations to resurrect its now-tattered 2015 nuclear deal with global powers.

Hong Kong’s pro-democracy Apple Daily could shut under government pressure (Washington Post) In the 26 years since its founding, Hong Kong’s Apple Daily newspaper has been unrestrained in its criticism of the Chinese Communist Party and unwavering in its support for the pro-democracy movement. It has survived multiple raids, boycott campaigns and the arrest of its founder, Jimmy Lai, under the draconian new national security law. But now with its assets frozen by the Hong Kong government, the Chinese-language Apple Daily could cease operations as soon as Friday. The news outlet is unable to pay staff members or vendors and will be forced to close if the government declines to release its funds—shuttering the territory’s largest independent newspaper. “It is more than surreal to see,” said Ed Chin, a hedge fund manager and longtime Apple Daily columnist. “These so-called executors of the national security law—they have lost it. They are destroying the autonomy of Hong Kong.” The fate of Apple Daily and its chief editor, top executives and founder Jimmy Lai—all either detained or arrested under the national security law and facing life in prison—are emblematic of the staggering changes underway in Hong Kong. Freedoms guaranteed in Hong Kong’s Basic Law, including freedom of speech and the press, have become secondary to Beijing’s will as it re-engineers the once-autonomous territory and uses the new law to force subservience.

Australia’s runaway mouse plague targets prisons, forcing mass evacuation (Washington Post) Hundreds of prisoners at Wellington Correctional Center in Australia’s New South Wales state are being forced to move out of the facility as officials scramble to repair the damage caused by mice chomping through cables, scurrying across ceiling panels and embedding in the building’s walls. Corrective Services New South Wales Commissioner Peter Severin confirmed that “vital remediation work” needed to be carried out at the jail, which is located about four hours from Sydney, along with a thorough clean and review of the prison’s infrastructure. An estimated 420 male and female prisoners will be relocated over the next 10 days, along with at least 200 staff members. Pest control services have been summoned to remove the dead creatures from the walls, which authorities say is sending a potent stench into the air. Australia has a mouse problem. A plague, in fact. A mass invasion occurs every decade or so, wreaking havoc across communities and destroying the crops and stock of farmers who are worried about what the future holds for their livelihoods.

In times of crises, Lebanon's old must fend for themselves (AP) Tiny and bowed by age, Marie Orfali makes the trip five times a week from her Beirut apartment to the local church, a charity and a nearby soup kitchen to fetch a cooked meal for her and her 84-year-old husband, Raymond. Their only support—Raymond’s $15,000 one-time end-of-service payment from when he retired more than 20 years ago—long ago ran dry. They have since depended on charity to cover almost everything: rent, cleaning supplies, pain killers and food for their white dog Snoopy. But charity covers less and less as Lebanon’s currency collapses. The cash they get from a benefactor and the church every month, once amounting to $400, is now barely worth $40. The 76-year-old Marie broke down in tears when asked how she’s doing. With virtually no national welfare system, Lebanon’s elderly are left to fend for themselves amid their country’s economic turmoil. In their prime years, they survived 15 years of civil war that started in 1975 and bouts of instability. Now, in their old age, many have been thrown into poverty by one of the world’s worst financial crises in the past 150 years. Lebanon has the greatest number of elderly in the Middle East—10% of the population of 6 million is over 65.

Palestinians, settlers clash in tense Jerusalem neighborhood (AP) Palestinians and Jewish settlers hurled stones, chairs and fireworks at each other overnight in a tense Jerusalem neighborhood where settler groups are trying to evict several Palestinian families, officials said Tuesday. The threatened evictions fueled protests and clashes in the runup to last month’s 11-day Gaza war and pose a test for Israel’s new governing coalition, which includes three pro-settler parties but is hoping to sideline the Palestinian issue to avoid internal divisions. The Red Crescent emergency service said its crews treated 20 Palestinians, including 16 suffering from pepper spray and tear gas and others wounded by rubber-coated bullets. Two other people were wounded, including an elderly man who was hit in the head, it said. The eruption of violence is the latest friction in Sheikh Jarrah, where weeks of unrest captured international attention ahead of the 11-day Israel-Hamas war last month. The cease-fire took effect on May 21, but the long-running campaign by Jewish settlers to evict dozens of Palestinian families continues.

They disappeared after encounters with Nigeria’s security forces (Washington Post) Her last sighting of her son was in a photo on social media. His eyes were shut. His face was covered in blood. He was dead. Now Ndifreke Ibanga is tormented by a recurring nightmare: her 26-year-old weeping. Victor’s soul will not rest, she worries, until his body is found. Victor is one of the hundreds of civilians who rights groups say are killed or disappear each year after encounters with Nigerian security forces—and one of more than a dozen still missing after a demonstration against police brutality in the city of Lagos in October. Some vanish after being taken into custody; others, like Victor, are presumed dead after public confrontations with police or soldiers. The families of victims are haunted by a singular question: What happened to their bodies? Local rights groups and international watchdogs have long accused Nigerian forces of carrying out extrajudicial killings and disappearing the corpses. Many are never found. But some are. Interviews with family members and friends of Nigerians who disappeared in similar circumstances shed light on a gruesome pattern: As a result of intense search efforts, or happenstance, or both, the bodies of their loved ones turned up at mortuaries and anatomy labs, nameless and without an easy explanation of how they arrived—or how they died.

#headlines #news

0 notes

sinrau · 4 years ago

Link

The Trump administration created more fears about that possibility this weekend when, as first reported by CNN, it informed members of Congress that the intelligence chief will no longer brief them in person on election security issues. It was yet another attack by the Trump administration on democratic institutions and the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution, but also — as one of the Senate’s only two independent senators argued Saturday — an insult to the American people.

On its own, the notification from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that the office would no longer brief Congress in person might seem like an esoteric issue to Americans who are struggling to return to normal life as the coronavirus pandemic continues its deadly rampage and millions of US workers have lost their jobs.

But it was the latest in a long list of efforts by Trump and his administration to erode the checks on their power two months from Election Day — efforts that have appeared to have one goal in common: ensuring that the President will be reelected in November.

The list is now too long to fit in one paragraph: The cuts to the US Postal Service at a time when many American want mail-in ballots to avoid getting sick at the polls; Trump’s efforts to undermine faith in America’s election system by claiming, without evidence, the increase in mail-in ballots will lead to a “rigged” presidential election; the Republican Party’s use of the awesome power of the presidency to produce a propaganda-filled convention complete with pardons and the transformation of the South Lawn of the White House into a political arena; the bullying of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to revise its guidance on Covid-19 testing; the vow to produce a coronavirus vaccine this year despite concerns from scientists about that timeline, and the administration’s recent exaggerations about the lifesaving benefits of convalescent plasma treatment as they announced an emergency authorization for its use.

The President’s explanation for the change to election security intelligence briefings Saturday sounded benign, as usual. While visiting Texas to survey the response to Hurricane Laura, he said Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe had eliminated the in-person briefings because he wanted to make sure that election security information “doesn’t leak.”

Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine, rejected that explanation as a rationale during an interview Saturday with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room.”

“The taxpayers of America are paying billions of dollars for the collection of intelligence — and we, the people, should have the benefit, the knowledge that that intelligence brings,” said King, who caucuses with the Democrats. “Learning about it next February or March doesn’t do much good. We’re talking about interference with our election this year, which we know is going on — the intelligence community has already told us that.”

King pointed out that members of Congress need the face-to-face briefings in order to ask follow-up questions to the written reports, to probe and deepen representatives’ understanding of the intelligence. “So this is a real step backward. It’s a real slap in the face to the American people, who have a right to know what the intelligence community knows. That’s what they’re there for.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, two of Trump’s top political adversaries, called the maneuver “a shocking abdication” of the administration’s “lawful responsibility” to keep Congress informed.

On “State of the Union” Sunday, Schiff said it is possible the House could subpoena intelligence officials to testify on election interference.

“I can’t speak for what decision ultimately we’ll make. That’s a decision that will have to go to the Speaker,” Schiff told CNN’s Dana Bash Sunday, referring to Pelosi.

He told Bash that the intelligence paid for by taxpayers doesn’t “belong to Donald Trump.”

“It belongs to the American people. The agencies are merely the custodians of that information,” Schiff said. “The American people ought to know what Russia is doing. They ought to know their President is unwilling to stand up to Vladimir Putin.”

The President suggested Saturday without evidence that Schiff or others might have leaked information from previous intelligence briefings.

“Director Radcliffe brought information into the committee and the information leaked,” Trump said, explaining the reason for the change to reporters in Texas. “Whether it was shifty Schiff or someone else, they leaked the information before it gets in and what’s even worse they leaked the wrong information and he got tired of it, so he wants to do it in a different form because you have leakers on the committee.”

On Fox News Sunday, Ratcliffe claimed he was cracking down on members of Congress who leak information for political purposes. “We’re going to do what we’re supposed to do, but what we’re also going to do is protect information from being leaked for political purposes. It’s just happened too much and I won’t stand for it,” he said.

Schiff told Bash on Sunday that neither he or anyone on his staff have leaked information and said the President’s claims about leaks amounted to “another lie” and a “false rationalization.”

“They weren’t concerned about leaks after the last briefing or they wouldn’t have come back to offer another briefing,” Schiff said. “What changed is, of course, the President, probably in another fit, saying I don’t want Congress informed. Because the last time that Congress was informed, the director of national intelligence had to put out another statement to acknowledge the fact the Russians are helping Donald Trump again.”

King told Blitzer that during his nearly eight years on the Senate Intelligence Committee, he couldn’t recall any time when anything was leaked from the committee.

Earlier this month, Bill Evanina, the top intelligence official for election security, alerted the American people in a statement that there is a high level of concern about potential foreign meddling in the election and that China “prefers” an outcome where Trump is not reelected in November while Russia is working to “denigrate” Biden’s White House bid.

“We assess that China prefers that President Trump — whom Beijing sees as unpredictable — does not win reelection,” Evanina wrote. “China has been expanding its influence efforts ahead of November 2020 to shape the policy environment in the United States, pressure political figures it views as opposed to China’s interests, and deflect and counter criticism of China.”

Evanina said Russia “is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former Vice President Biden and what it sees as an anti-Russia ‘establishment.’ This is consistent with Moscow’s public criticism of him when he was Vice President for his role in the Obama Administration’s policies on Ukraine and its support for the anti-Putin opposition inside Russia.”

Iran, Evanina said, is trying to “undermine US democratic institutions” and Trump in the hopes of further dividing the country.

In a show of bipartisanship at the time, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Republican and Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, released a joint statement encouraging the intelligence community to “continue to make this information available.”

On Saturday, they responded to the news in separate statements. Warner called the decision to stop in-person briefings an “unprecedented attempt to politicize an issue — protecting our democracy from foreign intervention — that should be non-partisan.”

“Congressional oversight of intelligence activities now faces a historic crisis,” Rubio said in his own statement. The Florida Republican went on to blame Democrats and slam the leaks.

“Yet, this grotesque criminal misconduct does not release the intelligence community from fulfilling its legal requirements” of keeping Congress informed, he said, adding that he’d spoken to Ratcliffe, who said the committee will continue to receive briefings. There’s no indication that means in-person briefings will resume.

The Trump administration’s policy change on intelligence briefings could clearly limit the amount of information that American voters have about election interference — the question now is whether they will demand greater transparency from the administration about efforts to subvert their democracy.

This story has been updated to include additional comments made on Sunday news shows.

Trump administration unleashes a new effort to undermine election integrity

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

drunkoctopusinc · 4 years ago

Text

Saw this on Instagram and not gonna lie- it kinda bugged me. Some of these points are accurate, some I disagree with but I see the argument for, others are out and out wrong. Usually the inaccuracies are due to purpously inflammatory phrasing, which is understandable since its a meme but the issues are to important for the language to stand fully uncriticed. Basically, I know it’s just a meme but I wanna pick it apart since this stuff is important and quite frankly I’m a little bored.

“Total support for Isreal”

This is true of the official platforms for each party. That being said I think it’s important to note you will find Democratic candidates and office holders with more moderated views on Isreal and (increasingly so) candidates who strongly support Palestine. There is no such moderation or diversity of opinion on the Republican side. If you want to cast your vote for someone who doesn’t support Isreal you might find that in a Democrat especially in the House of Reps, so be sure to look up your local candidates because they might surprise you on this one.

“Do Wall Streets bidding”

Wall Street is basically begging for Dodd-Frank to be repealed, and no Democrat is gonna do that. A Democratic administration created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and since 2010 there have been 3 separate bills introduced by Democrats to improve/reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act. (The most recent was a bi-patrician bill sponsored by Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), John McCain (R-AZ), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), and Angus King (I-ME)) I understand how a lack of success can make it feel like Democrats are just doing Wall Street’s bidding, but that’s not the case. There are certainly differences in the level of regulation Democrats are asking for, but the broad strokes is Democrats want regulations put on Wall Street, while Republicans believe Wall Street can be trusted to do whatever they want.

“Unlimited Military Spending”

Much to my chagrin, this is true. Regardless of party affiliation it’s good for any elected official to say they brought jobs to the district, and more fighter jets mean more jobs building fighter jets. No one wants to rock that boat.

“Hostility to Russia, Iran, & China”

This one has multiple parts with varing degrees of debatablity. For Russia the Obama Administration tried to soften relations but Putin basically responded “No thanks Toots” and proceeded to violated Ukraine’s sovrienty, back a dictator using chemical weapons on his own people, and meddle in our elections. Basically the Dems tried but it’s a two way street and Russia’s gotta be on board too. Meanwhile Trump and the Republicans seem to be fine with Russia paying militants to kill Americans and undermining democratic norms in the 2016 US elections as well as a bunch of other European elections so seems like they want to get along with Russia whatever it fucking takes. So I’d say there’s a pretty big difference on that one.

Regarding Iran, there’s not much difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both are skeptical about Iran and don’t want to risk the alliances we have with other middle eastern nations in order to tighten bonds with Iran. HOWEVER, the Iran Nuclear Treaty was a huge step forward in calming tensions which damn near every democrat supported. And the Republicans basically yeeted it into the sun for no good reason. So at least democrats don’t want to make shit worse with Iran. As for China 100% hositlites would have remained the same with a Dem and probably most Republicans. But at the moment Republicans support an active trade war with China which is only making our relations with them worse. So for both Iran and China the Dems gotta get at least some points for not wanting to make shit worse.

“Full Spectrum Dominance.”

Yes. Both parties want the US to a strong political and economic force on the world stage without any major foreign threats. (TBH I struggle to see the problem with this because that dominance could be used to give every nation wi-fi and tasty cookies just easily as to perpetuate rampant injustice especially when its so vauge as to what they mean by Full Spectrum Dominance. But I don’t have nothing against you if you don’t want the US to persue dominance as goal.)

“Let Money Rule politics”

Campaign finance reform is a complicated issue because there isn’t 1 clear answer for how to do it. Campaigning costs a lot of money and candidates have to get that money somehow, unfortunately there isn’t really an answer for how it needs to be done that can’t in some way be attacked for not going far enough or not solving the real problem. So while Democrats generally try to find solutions and create reform, it is perfectly understandable and reasonable to feel they aren’t actually solving anything. However I think it’s important note (given how important this years election is) that Joe Biden has been very consistent on voting for campaign finance reform for the past 40 years, even going so far as to create a system of public funding for congressional elections in the early 90s. So if this is a high priority issue for you Joe Biden has a strong record on it.

“Neoliberalism Rocks!”

I’ve found online the term “neoliberalism” is used to describe such a wide range of policies it’s becoming less and less clear exactly what a person means by saying “neoliberalism.” So how accurate this claim is really depends on how you define “neoliberal.” That caveats aside, traditionally both parties have their neoliberal cohorts, and they do wield a far bit of power since they usually are the “deal makers” who talk more with the other side and create the compromises which get broad enough support to pass. However, the Republican Party has been drifting away from neoliberal policies for some time and has been completely sprinting away from them since trump was elected. For example here are some policies self described neoliberals love which recent republicans have taken a massive shit on; Free Trade, easier immigration, and a carbon tax. Neoliberals are inherently in the middle so yes both parties have neoliberal segments (Bill Clinton, Bush Senior for example) but Republicans are rapidly running further and further right, so if not already accurate to say “Neoliberals universally identify as democrats” it will be soon.

“Spy on Everyone!”

This is a bit hyperbolic but yeah mostly. While there are officals on both sides who want to stop or at least curb the survalince state when talking about the respective parties as a whole there aren’t big differences on changing this, at least not public ones.

“Screw the Old and the Poor!”

This one is just so wildly overstated as to be impossible to really discuss/debate effectively. I could say this is false because both parties agree we should strive to eleminate poverty but they differ on how. I could also say this is true because neither party has proposed a solution which would actually help end poverty, or I could say this is false because the Democratic platform includes issues like raising the minimum wage and expanding the social safety net which will help the poorest Americans. There’s no way to really analyze for accuracy because its so broad and emotional that it’s really more of an opinion statement than anything. (To be clear, there’s nothing inherently wrong with such a statement. In many ways they are critical to the nations broader political discussion. it just doesn’t lend itself to what I’m looking to do with this post and I felt it would have been dismissive to just say “it’s an emotional argument so I don’t care”) The only substantive thing I can say here which still fits into my general structure is no candidate wants to do anything against old people because old people vote in big numbers. It’s the reason despite talk of cutting medicare and social security Republicans haven’t actually tried anything substantial on those issues.

“Oligarchy not democracy”

This is another one that gets caught up in definition. If you use the strictest definition of democracy and a broad definiton of Oligarchy then yes this is right but otherwise it really depends on how you define oligarchy. The majority of Americans have the right to vote, thus they have a say in what our government does. This would generally meet the most common definition of democracy and neither party wants to change that (at least not officially.) there is no bi partisan call for the wealthiest 1% or even the wealthiest 10% of Americans to have exclusive control over our governance. Of course that’s the most inflammatory version of this statement, and I doubt that’s what the person who wrote it was saying. The more likely definition of oligarchy this person was using is a government where an elite class hold a disproportionate share of political power rather all political power. In which case it’s very very hard to agrue the US isn’t an oligarchy. I mean even if we put aside the more heavily debated question of how strongly political power and money are, I think everyone would agree my senator has more political power than I do. Plus, the founders didn’t want “mob rule” they were terrified of a populist leader rising up, so they didn’t create a pure democracy. Instead they made republic, which one could argue is simultaneously an oligarchy and a democracy. This means when anyone looks to maintain the current american system even in the broadest strokes it could be agrued they’re supporting oligarchy over democracy. However you could just as easily argue they’re supporting democracy. The line between oligarchy and democracy aren’t as clear as we’d like them to be. (And of course when you bring the “how strongly are political power and money connected” debate back into the picture it only gets more obscured). Now, to finally get to my point, the degree to which the US is an oligarchy is unclear and so is the degree to which each party supports maintaining the oligarchical elements. However I think saying that either party doesn’t support democracy is inaccurate. BUT I also think it is vital that we recognize under Trump the Republican Party has tolerated repeated undermining of our democratic system risking serious and dangerous backsliding into totalitarianism. The Democratic Party has not engaged in this backsliding at all and has fought against it as much as they can, and you absolutely must understand that as you vote this fall.

“Vive US imperialism!”

Yeah this is pretty much spot on. I mean I don’t think either political party is looking to conquer Cuba or to steal Baja California from Mexico but yeah the bulk of people in each party are at the very least not invested in reducing what has been called “Neo-imperialism” which is almost certainly what this statement is referring to, so while I could get this on the technically but that would be disingenuous.

“outlaw third parties”

Third parties are legal. No one wants to make them illegal, the constitution also wouldnt let them. The problem is our voting system makes third parties mathematically unstrategic. You could argue they are functionally unallowed and there’s no insensitive for either party to change that so the idea here isn’t to far off, but outlawing third parties is such a bold claim, and that mathy disadvantage is drastically reduced in local races. So if you support a third party or want to create a third party, go for it. Just know that your efforts will be best spent starting local.

“Crush the left”

Pretty sure “the left” here means self described socialists and further left in which case yes. the establishment of both parties are still scared by the s-word and even worse the c-word because no one wants to be the USSR. But there are loads of people who would define the left as the democrats and the Democratic Party doesn’t want to crush Democratic Party. (It doesn’t mean to be a self destructive idiot but sometimes it just can’t help itself) so again I know what they’re going for here but little astrisk for other people might not.

“Regime change is cool.”

If regime change was something both parties liked there would be US troops in Venezuela right now. The oldest Democrats might not be out and out against all regime change but no democrat (and plenty of Republicans quiet frankly) want to repeat the Iraq War. When it comes to regime change worse case something democrats and republicans disagree on and best case something they both agree is bad.

TL;DR- there are key differences between the political parties, regardless of what a meme might say. It’s not the 90s anymore so those differences are pretty big and only getting bigger. To each there own on who and what they support, so do your research and learn which party and which candidates best represents your values.

PS- if it’s Donald Trump go jump of a bridge.

#2020 election #joe biden #donald trump #democrats #republicans #discourse #im kinda just venting here about the sloppy Rhetoric the internet praises #like i know theres no reason to expect nuanced debate #but it bums me out we dont actually understand the other side of any agrument because we only see there self-congratulatory memes #nothing wrong with memes #just they arent a subsitute for actual discussion #anyway this is just me over thinking stuff

0 notes

opedguy · 4 years ago

Text

Biden Must Pivot on Iran

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), Getting some familiar hands on deck, President-elect Joe Biden returned to the Obama administration to staff his new administration, selecting 74-year-old former Federal Reserve Board Chairwoman Jane Yellen for Treasury Secretary. When you consider the hobbled U.S. economy, Yellen was the right pick for Biden, picking the former Fed Chairwoman over 58-year-old Fed Governor Laeil Brainard. Brainward was considered the front-runner until Yellen made herself available, bypassing Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) someone also named as a possible pick. But with the economy sputtering from Covid-19-related shutdowns and restrictions, Yellen was the right choice, going back to an old hand at helping the economy recover from the 2008 Financial Crisis the left the U.S. economy in a deep recession.

Current Fed Chairman 68-year-old Jay Powell should work hand-in-glove with Yellen working on today’s zero interest rate policy to help stimulate the economy. Yellen and Powell are big proponents of fiscal policy too, encouraging Congress to pass a new round of stimulus, something 77-year-old Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been reluctant to do because to the economy’s whopping federal budget deficits now running at $3.1 trillion with the national debt exceeding $27 trillion. If Powell and Yellen aren’t concerned about adding to the federal budget deficit or national debt, neither should McConnell, whose blocked 80-year-old House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) $3.4 trillion Heroes Act that would provide new payroll protection, expanded unemployment benefits and, most importantly, help to cities and states.

Once Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke retired as Fed Chairman in 2010, Yellen took over at a time of economy growth, especially improvements in the stock market. Yellen kept interest rates near zero until starting to raise them again in 2015. Yellen raised the Federal Funds Rates four times in 2015 before handing the baton to Powell. Powell kept things steady until raising rates in 2018, something 74-year-old President Donald Trump didn’t like, eventually slashing rates to zero again in 2019 before the Covid-19 crisis hit. Powell admitted that the Fed doesn’t have much experience dealing with global pandemics, something that confounds the Fed’s job of dealing with monetary policy. Bringing Yellen back to run Treasury was the right step for Biden, who inherits economic uncertainty due to the Covid-19 crisis.

Yellen’s been a big advocate for more fiscal stimulus something stuck in Congress. Yellen agrees with Powell that there’s only so much the Fed can do with monetary policy needing Congress to step up with more stimulus. “When unemployment is exceptionally high and inflation is historically low, as they both are now, the economy needs more fiscal spending to support hiring,” Yellen wrote Aug. 24 with Biden’s chief economist Jared Bernstein in the New York Times. Yellen thinks deficit spending is preferable than balancing the budget because employers need cash infusion to continue hiring, something essential to economy recovery. What’s lost in the shuffle, is that the economy was heading into recession before Covid-19 pushed it over the edge. It’s didn’t take long for the unemployment rate to spike to near record levels.

Trump warned during the campaign that a Biden presidency would plunge the economy into another Great Depression. But judging by whom Biden has put in place, he doesn’t intend to let the economy get much worse. Yellen has also said she supports tax hikes to help whittle away at federal deficits. But Yellen isn’t saying that it’s exactly the right time to raise taxes during a severe recession. She fits with Bernstein’s view that before raising taxes, Congress must pass more stimulus to drill down the unemployment rate to at least 5%, where it was before Trump got in office. Trump brought down the unemployment rate to 3.5%, a 50-year-low that was expected to increase U.S. Gross Domestic Product [GDP] to about 4%. Under Trump GPD growth hit 3% before Powell started hiking rates in 2018.

Yellen was the perfect pick to work with Powell and others at Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers to get the economy out of its current recession. Wall Street has done everything possible to keep generating capital in economic markets but needs some help from the Fed and Congress to keep things going. Yellen justified her rate hikes in 2015 saying the staved off more inflation. But today’s situation is different with Covid-19 still escalating before vaccines can be distributed to the public. When you consider Yellen was willing to serve a Treasury Secretary, Biden got the best of both worlds, someone with widespread respect and a good working relationship with Powell. Yellen becomes the first woman in U.S. history to lead the Treasury Department, yet another glass ceiling smashed as Biden continues his Cabinet picks.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analzying spin in national and global news he’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

0 notes

stoweboyd · 7 years ago

Text

Some Predictions, 2018

I had the thought this morning that I might be better off thinking about the future adversarially, as if I were wrestling with a shadowed but immensely strong and fanged opponent, instead of looking out on a rolling plain filled with slowly ambling herbivorous events and interactions. Alfred North Whitehead said

It is the business of the future to be dangerous.

And maybe I should approach it from a different angle: maybe I should visualize my work as a futurist more like storming a castle than opening the mail.

Some of my predictions have been made in Twitter, already, while others are seeing the light of day for the first time, here. Others have been modified from 2017 predictions or other sources.

I placed these in four broad categories: Technology, Politics, Economics, and Climate. I’ll leave Arts and Culture for a separate post.

Politics

Democrats will regain control of the US House of Representatives, taking a/ all the seats in counties that voted for Clinton now held by GOP reps (23), b/ holding all the Dem seats in districts that voted for Trump (12), and /c targeting districts with retiring moderate GOP reps, districts with close races last election, and some wildcards adding up to 24 wins. It’s going to happen though, I bet. (see great graphics on this at WaPo). Bannon is a big factor, accelerating the splintering of the GOP.

Democrats will take the Senate, even though the Dems have 26 Senate seats up for grabs, while GOP has only 8 seats up for reelection. Bannon is a big factor, accelerating the splintering of the GOP.

Despite campaign rhetoric, Trump has maintained or expanded the wars that he inherited from Obama. Trump has achieved none of his major foreign policy goals. I predict 2018 will just get worse. (via twitter)

European populism will continue to expand, as detailed by Yascha Mounk and Martin Eiermann.

Mueller will find clear signs of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and will indict campaign officials, including Donald Trump Jr., but not Donald Trump. Pence will resign since he was the leader of the transition team when it all came down, and Trump will appoint Nikki Haley as Vice-President, the first woman and Asian-American to hold that office.

Iran will be struck with on-going protests as a result of a cascades of social and economic problems: drought, water, unemployment, high prices, welfare cuts, corruption, and government policies. The government will start out trying to moderate the protests, but will ultimately ramp up the use of force. The country will move to crisis which will not be resolved in 2018.

Putin will win reelection.

Concerns about Brexit, populism, and anti-EU sentiment in Europe leads to more unstable governments there, and internal policy changes on Chinese debt lead to slowing development there. Both of these trends have negative impacts on the world economy.

Drought and heat wave in Asia, Africa, and india lead to enormous disruption and policy challenges. Nationalist and populist governments of Europe and Asia close their borders to new migrants and climate refugees.

GOP offers of 2018 bipartisanship fall apart after infrastructure discussions reach an impasse: GOP wants to use private-public partnerships, basically granting large sums to major developers, while Democrats favor a broadly-based jobs program coordinated with State governments. As a result, nothing gets done prior to 2018 elections.

#MeToo continues as a potent cultural force with significant impact in the political realm, with an on-going stream of male politicians brought low.

The Syrian civil war will come to a negotiated end, with an agreement for war amnesties for al-Assad’ government and the rebels, excluding ISIS forces. A complex multi-stage approach to the creation of a new government is proposed, but not solidified in 2018.

The standoff in Catalonia will continue into 2018, without a resolution. Rajoy was been massively weakened by the growing perception of intransigence, and his lack of a real resolution to the Catalonia crisis. Meanwhile, the separatists in Catalonia can't rally around a coherent plan for independence in a European Union that seems adamantly opposed to fracturing of member countries, despite the growing movements in Catalonia and other regions.

The UK and EU come to agreement on a timetable and logistics for Brexit, although myriad details remain to be tacked down. However, the possibility of an amicable and close relationship -- not as close as Norway -- but an agreement that allows for Britain to participate on trade in the EU as a slight disadvantage but under EU law while limiting free immigration.

North Korea fires a low-yield (5 kilotons) nuclear missile to the middle of the Pacific and detonates it as 'proof that North Korea is a nuclear power that can't be trifled with', says Kim Jung-un. This is less than half the yeild of the Hiroshim bomb, and causes no direct injuries. Trump rattles his saber, but ultimately the world accepts the notion of a nuclear-armed North Korea joining Pakistan, India, Israel, Russia, China, France, UK, and US.

Israel's aggressive stance toward annexation of West Bank territory leads to international condemnation, but Trump's administration does little aside from calls for moderation. Many critics begin to call the Israeli model Apartheid, and European support for Israel, in particular, plummets. The US blocks UN resolutions calling for sanctions against Israel.

Technology

Amazon will pick Denver or Toronto as the site for its second HQ.

Amazon will acquire Slack for $15B. Work chat will continue as the dominant theme in work technology in 2018, although they is considerable pushback on its negatives, too.

Apple will acquire Tesla for $75B. Tim Cook will retire, and Elon Musk will become CEO of the merged Apple/Tesla, to be called Apple.

Microsoft will buy Salesforce for $100B. Benioff will retire to philanthropy.

Driverless fleets by various companies will be launched in 2018 – GM in NYC, Lyft taxis in Boston, Ford, Waymo in Phoenix.

A growing number of major corporations will deploy AI intended to augment or replace frontline and middle managers, leading to tens of thousands of managers being reassigned or let go. This will be the result of AI-to-AI communications, where narrowly- and deeply-focused AIs will collaborate with other complementary AIs at a pace that humans can’t keep up with. Employee engagement rises.

Amazon Alexa technology dominates the home, with Google a strong second, and Apple as a distant also-ran.

Netflix acquires Spotify for $10B.

The ability to run Android apps on Chromebook devices will lead to growing migration from Windows, Mac, and iOS devices.

Google will acquire Twitter for $20B. Jack Dorsey will step down, and Google will redesign Twitter in a crowdsourced process, looking ahead to integration with Google Photos, Google Maps, Youtube, AdSense, DoubleClick, Google Home, and Google Assistant.

Facebook, Twitter and other social media systems will mobilize a combination of human and AI-based filtering to counter the deluge of fake news directed by Russia and other malefactors during elections in 2018, having increased but not perfect success.

Google will acquire Medium for $2.5B.See 10, above.

Amazon will release Alexa Glasses, which allow wearer to communicate with Alexa services by voice, and get audio response by bone conduction and video response projected on the glasses. They will sell millions.

Economics

Major stock indexes will continue their growth of recent years, led by technology stocks, like Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and others. However, the rate of growth will slow in the fall, as concerns about Brexit, populism, and anti-EU sentiment in Europe leads to more unstable governments there, and internal policy changes on Chinese debt lead to slowing development there. Both of these trends have negative impacts on the world economy, as does the drought and heat wave in Asia, Africa, and India.

Growing instability in Europe, due to the rise of nationalism and populism, will lead to a decline in European growth, and the return of problems with overly indebted countries and central banks.

China’s growth rate will slow because of internal and external concerns about deep debt overhang.

Sustainable energy will continue to drop in price, forcing energy systems to shift to battery systems to capture excess. As a result, coal and oil will continue to trend downward, and the energy sector will shift investments to sustainable sources.

Automation will increase worldwide, but the productivity paradox -- where those investments do not lead immediately to increase in productivity -- will continue, although many occupations (like financial services, IT, and retail, not just manufacturing) will start to see a decline in jobs.

Creative and freelance workers will begin to unionize as a means to counter the precarious nature of work in the gig economy, mobilized in part by the #MeToo, #Resistance, and #fightfor15 movements, and the leftward lean of the Democrats in the 2018 elections.

The concepts of ‘flexicurity’ and ‘fluidarity’ begin to form a central aspect of a new US labor movement.

Climate

2018 will be the hottest year on record.

The US will be hit with a record number of hurricanes.

Asia will be hit with a record number of typhoons.

The atmospheric levels of CO2 will reach a new record in fall 2018.

Africa, Asia, and India are confronted by extreme heat and drought, leading to famine, disorder, and heightened tensions. Hundreds of millions attempt to migrate from stricken regions, leading to reprisals, border wars, and growing catastrophe.

Puerto Rico is hit by several hurricanes, and its power is again knocked out. An additional million citizens emigrate to mainland US.

New York City is hit by a hurricane and large portions of the city’s already straining subway system are flooded. The prognosis is grim: it will take years and tens of billions to recover.

#workfutures #economics #climate #politics #technology #predictions #2018

4 notes · View notes

click2watch · 6 years ago

Text

10 Passes To Go: Bitcoin’s Lightning Torch Will Soon Burn Out

Bitcoin’s lightning torch will soon burn out, putting an end to a global payments experiment that has seen participation from hundreds of recipients, from tech luminaries like Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to users in countries cut off from parts of the world by economic sanctions.

Users taking part in the venture have been showing the power of lightning’s tech by passing a payment from one person to the next, adding a few cents worth of bitcoin with each step. The so-called “torch” has burned through at least 54 countries so far, showcasing its cross-border prowess.

But because of a hard-coded transaction limit of about $170 at time of press (it’s officially 4.29 milliion satoshis), there’s a limit on how much bitcoin can be sent across a lightning channel at once, users will only be able to pass the torch about a dozen more times before it hits that limit.

Once the torch payment hits the limit (which was put into place for safety reasons) people can no longer add 30 cents or so to the torch with each pass, as was the lightning torch tradition.

Of course, it’s impossible to say what exactly what will happen to the torch until it dies out. Will the torch die out? Or, will someone simply start a new one?

The pseudonymous Hodlonaut, who started the lightning torch on a whim, has been counting down the remaining spots on Twitter (now down to 10), telling CoinDesk that he is not planning start up a second torch.

When asked whether they’re planning to start another torch as this one dies out, Hodlonaut responded: “I don’t think so. Maybe something else ;)”

Global experiment

The possible end to the lightning torch raises what might be an obvious question: what are the key takeaways?

Participants argue that, for better or worse, the lightning torch has shown that the technology is unstoppable, as it crossed into more than 50 countries with ease. If one country implements policies that are unfair, bitcoin can bypass this, because payments can’t be stopped by any one person or entity.

In addition to passing through so many countries, that the torch was sent to Iran seemed to vindicate this view. Iranian bitcoin user Ziya Sadr tried to receive the torch, but some torch bearers were too scared to pass it to him due to U.S. sanctions potentially making it illegal to do so. But, when an unknown user from Ireland passed Sadyr the torch, it seemed to secure the view that bitcoin’s lightning is borderless.

Sadr agrees with these sentiments. “Bitcoin and lightning are truly censorship resistant and people manifested this too during this very public and bold experiment!” he told CoinDesk, adding:

“Bitcoin is borderless and it will not conform to state-backed sanctions and national politics.”

According to bitcoin enthusiast and entrepreneur Akin Ferdinandez, the experiment “showed clearly that the world is actually just one place, and with the right tools it’s possible to traverse national borders and reach everyone as if there were no barriers between anyone.”

“The torch entering and leaving Iran unimpeded is all the proof you need to show this is true. People really can get along if given the chance,” Ferdinandez told CoinDesk.

Hodlonaut also pointed out some of the lesser-known facts of the experiment. For example, a group of Venezuelans received the torch while the country was roiling amid a power outage. With no electricity, they powered their lightning node with a motorcycle battery.

Ferdinandez, who carried the torch last week, thinks it shows that even when a technology is early on, it can do good.

“It also shows once again that a small number of people can have a hugely significant global impact in a short amount of time if their thinking is right and they have the focus and skills to execute in software,” Ferdinandez (who also goes by the moniker Beautyon) told CoinDesk, adding:

“The lesson here is, ‘Do not underestimate bitcoin’.”

Lightning limitations

But while the experiment shows the latent promise of the technology, it also shows how unready it is, Lee argued to CoinDesk.

“I think the torch shows [that] using lightning by running one’s own node and lightning is still not easy enough. Most torch holders end up using a custodial solution, which is not ideal,” Lee said.

“Custodial” wallets like Bluewallet have recently sprung up. Lightning users, including those who have participated in the lightning torch, have flocked to them because they make lightning easier to use. They don’t need to set up their own lightning node, a time-consuming process that requires a lot of hard drive space, for instance.

While this sounds great, it’s “not ideal” as Lee put it, because custodial wallets have full control of users funds — a characteristic that sort of defeats the purpose of bitcoin as a digital currency that users are intended to have complete control over.

“We still have lots of work to do to make lightning easy to use,” Lee said.

This technological immaturity is embedded in the very reason the lightning torch is near its end, about to reach its transaction limit. The limit is there for a reason, as it’s one of the features put in place by developers to keep users safe, since lightning is still a budding technology susceptible to bugs.

Accidental altruism

Another outcome of the experiment is it has unexpectedly turned into a crowdsourced charity project.

Once the torch hits the transaction limit, Hodlonaut and the community plans to donate the torch to the non-profit Bitcoin Venezuela, dedicated to spreading the word about bitcoin as a currency alternative in the economically troubled country.

Hodlonaut tweeted:

“[These] guys really deserve all the support we can give them. They will receive the #LNTrustChain torch, but that only amounts to around $170.”

To expand the donation effort to not only just the few who get to carry the lightning torch, Hodlonaut started a parallel donation effort on Tallycoin, a fundraising platform accepting solely bitcoin and lightning payments.

Without a transaction limit to worry about, the fundraiser has snowballed much more money than the torch, attracting has attracted 235 donations totaling 0.38672 bitcoin, worth about $1,553 at time of press.

Torch image via Shutterstock

This news post is collected from CoinDesk