#not conceding to the middle and right like democrats did | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

californiaroadtoad · 1 year ago

Text

Rule of law.

While everyone continues to argue about whether or not Donald Trump belongs on the ballot, or if he should be elected whether or not he should be allowed to serve, permit me to offer another view of this.

Back in 2000, we had one of the most contentious elections in recent history, that of George W. Bush and Al Gore. (Disclosure: in 2000, I lightly held my nose and went with Bush, thinking at the time, he was the better candidate. History, of course, will judge people like me harshly, as it should. Or do I need to remind anyone of the statement that we had Saddam Hussein dead to rights, that he had WMDs? How’d that turn out?) Gore campaigned on a number of issues, critical among them was that when Social Security was first established, all funds were supposed to be held in trust, a “lock box” as he phrased it. It wasn’t supposed to have gone into the General Fund as is presently the case, with promises of payment when people came of age. (And don’t give me this nonsensical argument that the Democrats are solely responsible for this. That’s an outright lie, since it’s been rare for either party in power to have an absolute lock on Congress. Enough Republicans went along with it to make it happen.) Had Gore’s plan gone into effect, it might not have put Social Security in solvency, but it would have pressed matters closer to that goal. (Today, Republicans want to eliminate Social Security.)

Just a reminder that the state which served as the linchpin in this was Florida, with just under 600 votes separating the two candidates. While Gore originally conceded, when it became clear that the margin between the two candidates was closer than expected, Gore did what he should have done and rescinded the concession until an accurate and fair recount could be completed.

There have been some serious questions whether it was an accurate or fair recount. Granted, Bush’s brother, Jeb, was Governor, and the campaign director in Florida for Gore was Bob Butterworth, the Attorney General. But the real concern for someone like me was Secretary of State Katherine Harris, who was later recorded as saying she saw it as a duty from God to ensure Bush got elected.

That’s not a red flag. That’s a Mayday Parade.

First and foremost, Harris’ job as Secretary of State was to ensure fair and lawful elections. That was it. If she wanted to serve her God, then her first responsibility was to make damned sure elections were honest, and not to favor one candidate over another. (The media, for some reason, seemed to focus on how much makeup Harris wore, particularly before the cameras. I guess it’s just me, but I seem to think that something like that is a matter best settled between the Secretary of State and her dermatologist, some talking head on CNN.)

Florida had more than a few criticisms leveled at it, particularly from the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights. These included efforts to freeze out voters of color, especially those in predominantly Black communities, which right there should have prompted a Congressional investigation into what happened. (It might have redeemed Congress for its idiocy in trying to figure out if President Clinton benefited from being hoovered while Yasser Arafat waited outside the Oval Office for a discussion of Peace Talks in the Middle East.) This was far more important than any “pregnant” or “hanging” chads during the recount, and even if Bush had won after an investigation, it would have bolstered the integrity of American elections. (See the USCCR report here: https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm .)

Still with all of the irregularities, with the fight over whether or not absentee ballots should have been counted, (yes, they should have, regardless of the margins), with questions of the role of Katherine Harris, Gore did something that should have been a message to everyone in political life in America.

He said, “It’s time for me to go.”

Time has shown us that Gore and Lieberman did the right thing in vigorously defending the Constitutionality of their case. They did the right thing in discussing and arguing about the vote and voter irregularities in Florida. You might not like it, but they didn’t simply have a right to argue the matter, it was their Constitutional responsibility as American citizens and as leaders in American politics. Most of us accepted this, because the Constitution says it’s our right.

Trump, the “stable genius,” should have learned from this. Had he said, “I concede,” and left the stage, he could have laid claim to higher ground. Since he made it clear he intended to run again, people would have been hard pressed to argue the point: he’d conceded the loss to his opponent, Joe Biden, and like Grover Cleveland, he’d have returned to face the voters again. I wouldn’t have voted for him, (I’ve never supported him, and never will), but at least those who did could in some way be considered loyal, at least to the nation.

Instead, we had a mob of “Chairborne Rangers,” many of whom were armed, attacking the United States Capitol, resulting in the death of Brian Sicknick on the 6th, and the suicides of four other responding officers. (Claims that the mob was unarmed don’t hold water after law enforcement officials found caches of weapons on the Capitol’s grounds.) Ashli Babbitt and three other attackers died as a result of the attack. 174 officers were injured, with 15 being hospitalized, according to Wikipedia.

While this was characterized as a “mob attack,” the reality is that for the most part, it was planned. The goal was to overthrow the lawful and duly established government of the United States.

The number of injuries and deaths as a result of Gore’s loss in 2000: 0.

Gore insisted on the peaceful transfer of power. Trump did not.

There are multiple parties who are responsible for this: Newt Gingrich with his “win at all costs” strategy did much to inflame this. In spite of his statesmanlike book’s thesis, To Renew America, his goal was not negotiated, discussed, or even rationally argued. Rather, Gingrich outside of the bookshops advocated that Republicans brawl their way to the top. It was a view that was preceded by Pat Buchanan, (who famously told an aide that he never wanted to hear how someone in the media was a friend: Buchanan asserted they were always the enemy, according to Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes.) I can go on, including Lee Atwater, and a number of others, but I think the point’s been made. The very idea of a peaceful transfer of power became Anathema to a great many of Trump’s supporters, as they made baseless claims regarding Qanon, (proven false, and the “Q” in question had a dubious background himself), Pizzagate, and “stopping the steal,” which all went along with the continued racist and false claims that Barack Obama hadn’t been born in the US, long ago disproved by his Birth Certificate.

(A friend had lived in Hawaii at the time, and she took the time to go to the State Records office in Honolulu. She paid her dollar, took her chances, and posted online Obama’s Birth Certificate. I learned two things: first, he was born in Hawaii. Citizen. Second, DAMN, that was one big kid! No wonder he’s an only child!)

Just on this point alone, Trump does not belong in office. He never should have been elected in the first place, and he shouldn’t be returned to office now. EVERYONE who participated in the riot on January 6th, 2021 should be in prison, and those who have been convicted so far should be doing far more time than most of them have been sentenced to. The right to keep and bear arms, critical to the nation’s defense, did NOT give these people to attack our nation’s capital, ever. Supporting Trump is a more passive attack on the nation, but it’s still an attack. To support a man who called our nation’s veterans “Suckers and Losers” is shameful, and those who would support that will ultimately owe everyone they’ve slandered with that sobriquet a genuine apology, regardless of their own status status regarding the nation’s service.

You don’t have to like Biden. You should be questioning his policies and proposals as a citizen of the nation. But Biden has at the very least subscribed to the Rule of Law. Trump denounces this, claims no one can hold him to account for his actions under the law, and is doing all he can to undermine the rule of law. The man is a demonstrated acolyte of Roy Cohn, who amplified the actions of Senator Joseph McCarthy, and ultimately destroyed the lives of American citizens whose sole crime was disagreeing with those in authority, which was their Constitutional right. (I don’t believe there were anywhere near as many Marxists in American Government as Tailgunner Joe claimed, which right there should have cemented his position, and the positions of those who backed him, as being far more Unamerican than Gus Hall.)

Trump should not serve, never should have served, and is not qualified to serve. He recited his oath of office with his fingers crossed behind his back. Al Gore, when it was clear there were irregularities in the 2000 election, acted in a lawful manner, and upheld the Constitution. Trump has already declared that once he’s elected again, he will shred the Constitution. Biden’s demonstrated he will uphold it.

That the Senate did not convict is due to Senator Mitch McConnell, not the facts. McConnell should have been expelled for his actions, and Trump convicted. We cannot change history, but we can at least acknowledge the former – and never should have been – President is not fit to serve.

#donald trump #politics #Bush Gore #liars #rule of law

0 notes

queen-eliza-schuyler · 5 years ago

Text

Work Place Problems- Chapter 8

“I’m still unsure, mon ami. Are you sure staying private is the best plan of action?” Lafayette asked for the hundredth time.

“Yes, Laf, me and Thomas decided we weren’t going to go public yet,” Alexander said, rolling his eyes.

“Well, do not blame me for being cautious,” Lafayette huffs.

“I’m not, just relax,” Alex placates.

Lafayette sighs but concedes. “Whatever you say.”

Alex smiles. “Thank you, Laf!”

Lafayette twirled a pen. “Philip Schuyler gave up his seat to Aaron.”

Alex nodded. “He’s becoming a Democratic Republicans to threaten Thomas.”

Lafayette chuckles. “Sounds like him.”

***

“France and England have been on the verge of war, yet again. We need to know what we’ll do to help them- do we help them or stay out of it?” Washington asks the congressmen in front of him.

“Remember, my decision on this matter is not subject to congressional approval. The only person you have to convince is me. Secretary Jefferson, you have the floor, sir,” Washington said, going next back to his seat, letting Thomas take the floor.

“When we were on death’s door, when we were needy. We made a promise. We signed a treaty! We need money and guns and half a chance. Uh, who provided those funds?” Thomas asks, ready with his speech.

“France,” Madison mutters from behind him.

Thomas smiles at his admission and continues. “In return, they didn’t ask for land, only a promise that we’d lend a hand and stand with them if they fought against oppressors, and revolution is messy but now is the time to stand! Stand with our brothers as they fight against tyranny. I know that Alexander Hamilton is here and he would rather not have this debate; I’ll remind you that he is not Secretary of State! He knows nothing of loyalty! Smells like new money, dresses like fake royalty. Desperate to rise above his station, everything he does betrayed the ideals of our nation. Hey, and if you don’t know, now you know, Mr. President.”

Washington sat passively in his seat. “Thank you, Secretary Jefferson. Secretary Hamilton, your response?”

Jefferson smirks at his secret fiancé. Just because they were due to be married didn’t mean that they couldn’t have conflicting thoughts.

“You must be out of your goddamn mind if you think the President is going to bring the nation to the brink of meddling in the middle of a military mess, a game of chess, where France is Queen and King-less. We signed a treaty with a King whose head is now in a basket, would you like to take it out and ask it? Should we honor our treaty, King Louis’s head?

‘Uh, do whatever you want I’m super dead!’” Hamilton finishes boldly, creating a riot from the crowd.

“Enough enough, Hamilton is right.” Washington yells over the noise, raising his hands to calm the council.

“Mr. President!” Thomas protests.

“We’re too fragile to start another fight.”

“But sir, do we not fight for freedom?”

“Sure, when the French figure out who’s gonna lead them.”

“The people are leading!”

“The people are rioting! There’s a difference! Frankly, it’s a little disquieting that you would let your ideals blind you to reality! Hamilton?” Washington snaps.

“Sir,” Alex says out of instinct.

“Draft the statement of neutrality.” Washington orders.

Alexander nods and the council clears out.

“Did you forget what it was like to fight in a war that you felt like you were losing? France helped us yet we aren’t helping them?” Thomas asks his omega once they were together in Alex’s office.

“If we try to fight in every revolution in the world, we would never stop. Where do we draw the line?” Alexander counters.

“So quick witted,” Thomas drawls.

“Alas, I admit it,” Alexander says with faux disappointment.

“I bet you were quite a lawyer,” Thomas teases.

Alexander shrugged. “My defendants got acquitted.”

Thomas laughs. “Of course they did.”

After a beat of silence, Alex looks up to see uncertainty written on Thomas’s face.

“Is something wrong, Thomas? If you cheated on me again, I swear to god I’m gonna fucking-” Alexander threatens.

“No, no, Jesus, no. I was wondering…. would you like to move into my manor with me? We’re getting married soon anyways and my house is closer to the office,” Thomas said, attempting to feign nonchalance.

Alexander snickers. “Too proud to admit you want me close at all times?”

Thomas puts a hand on his heart and lets out an exaggerated sigh. “My pride is wounded, Alexander.”

Alex throws his head back and laughs. “Yes, I would like to move in with you. As long as you don’t wake me up in the mornings.”

Thomas sighs. “That might be a problem.

Alexander raises an eyebrow. “How so?”

“I might be an early waker,” Thomas admits.

Alexander’s eyes narrow. “How early?”

“5:30 early.”

“Jesus fuck! How the hell do you function?”

“My natural finesse.”

“I call bullshit.”

“It’s coffee.”

“Ok, I love you again.”

Thomas snorts. “I’d hope so. The marriage is after the election.”

Alexander sticks his tongue out and Thomas immediately reciprocates without thinking.

“Childish brat,” Thomas huffs.

“Please, you’re no better. And you love me,” Alexander counters knowingly.

“I suppose I do,” Thomas says, slightly smiling.

#thomas jefferson #alexander hamilton #jamilton

15 notes · View notes

theculturedmarxist · 5 years ago

Link

For those that might not know, Grover Norquist is Washington’s anti-tax poster boy since the Reagan administration. Calling him an anti-tax lobbyist is missing the vast majority of other shit he’s responsible for or has had a hand in. He’s basically been integral in creating the immensely shitty situation in regards to a failed government and overpowered business lobby that we’re in today.

Anyway, I wanted to share the absolutely delusional bullshit these people say to each other, because it’s absolutely illuminating.

Grover Norquist On Taxes, Socialism And The Demonization Of The Rich

Grover Norquist is President of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), a taxpayer organization that opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle and has been leading campaigns for tax reductions since 1986. ATR was founded at the request of President Reagan and asks all candidates for office in the United States to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a written commitment to vote against any tax hikes while they are in office. Rainer Zitelmann spoke with him:

Rainer Zitelmann: In Europe, governments are already looking beyond the coronavirus crisis and planning massive tax increases. In particular, there have been increasing calls for a wealth tax on the richest within society to pay for coronavirus measures and guard against future crises. Supporters of free market economics, on the other hand, are calling for tax cuts to get the economy back on track once the current crisis has abated. What do you think will happen in the United States? If Trump is re-elected, will he cut taxes again? And what will happen if Biden wins?

Grover Norquist: Once we’re looking back on coronavirus in our rearview mirror rather than having it flying at the windshield—then what? Little will happen before the November 2020 American presidential election. Democrats will demand higher taxes and massive spending, Republicans will propose tax cuts. But the Democrat-controlled house will block any tax reductions and the Republican-dominated senate and the Trump veto will block any tax increases or spending explosion. Should Trump win re-election, Republicans will move to enact their stated goal of reducing the corporate income tax to 15% from today’s 21%. They will push to index capital gains for inflation—so capital gain taxes would only be due on real gains, not inflationary gains. Should Biden win the presidency, and the Democrats capture the senate, Biden has promised $3.4 trillion of new taxes. That is three times what Hillary Clinton threatened/promised in 2016—and she lost for being too left wing. Spending will explode. Income tax will be increased, an energy tax will be imposed and eventually a Value Added Tax will be levied. Of course, this fork in the road would be exactly the same if there was no coronavirus. Republicans are the party of tax reduction and (modest) spending restraint. Democrats remain the party of endless tax hikes and endless spending sprees.

Zitelmann: In the United States, socialism used to be a dirty word—and it still is for many older Americans. In contrast, large numbers of younger Americans are committed to “socialism.” So why has anticapitalism become so popular in the United States, especially among younger people?

Norquist: The sad answer is that younger Americans do not know what socialism means. Millennials do not remember the Soviet Union. Or Stalin’s Gulags or the Warsaw Pact. They only know Russia. They could not even tell you what the initials U.S.S.R. stood for, or that Nazi is the abbreviation of National Socialist. Somehow, Bernie Sanders, who is well versed in Soviet history and Cuba’s tradeoff of “literacy” against political prisoners, has explained to younger Americans that “socialism” means Sweden and Denmark.

‘Sanders Had Already Won The Policy Debate’

Zitelmann: Sanders is now out of the race. However, you believe that his ideas have nevertheless prevailed. Why is that?

Norquist: You might think that Bernie Sanders’ withdrawal from the 2020 campaign and the likely victory of Vice President Joe Biden represents a move to the center by the Democrats. Sadly, no. I would argue that Bernie Sanders left the race not because he failed to get enough delegates to win but because he had already won the policy debate. Biden’s threatened tax hikes total $3.4 trillion dollars over a decade. That is three times more than Hillary Clinton threatened. Biden promises to ban fracking, plastic bags (he said plastic, let’s generously assume he meant only plastic bags), expand Medicare with a “public option,” meaning a door through which all Americans could be pushed into a one-size-fits-all, government-controlled health care system, and an energy/carbon tax. What is the difference between Biden and Bernie? They have the same Rolodexes. The same likely White House staffers. The same rhetoric.

Why The Rich Are Being Demonized

Zitelmann: In the Democratic primaries, all of the candidates seemed to be competing to outdo each in terms of their “rich-bashing” rhetoric. Even Michael Bloomberg, himself one of the richest men in the world, was forced to demand higher taxes on the rich before he was forced to withdraw from the race. Where does this hatred of the rich come from?

Norquist: The Democrats need trillions of dollars to buy votes to win the 2020 election. To do that they will require a great deal more money than the $3.8 trillion raised in taxes under the 2019 budget. And they can’t afford to admit that regular voters are the likely target of their new and additional taxes—an energy tax, a Value Added Tax and higher payroll taxes. So Democrat candidates, continuing the strategies adopted by Clinton and Obama, started by demonizing the rich and then promising to tax them—not you, the typical voter. Now, both Clinton and Obama did raise taxes on the middle class—but they talked so much about taxing the rich that even a well-educated voter could be forgiven for thinking that the new taxes were all on the rich. Every new tax voters heard about were announced as targeting the rich (or corporations which, of course, pass on their increased tax burdens to consumers in the form of higher prices and workers in lower wages). The left needs to demonize the rich. It is, after all, their justification for taxing them. Americans do not like the idea of taking money away from someone who earned it.

Zitelmann: A great deal of energy is expended on arguing that the “rich” did not earn their money.

Norquist: Yes, the logic is this: If the rich are only rich because they got lucky, then they never truly earned or deserve their fortunes. This is why Barack Obama told small businessmen in the 2009 campaign, “You did not build that,” when referring to their own small businesses. If you didn’t build it—it isn’t really yours. And, once Democrat logic is accepted, taking it away is not really theft. Nor wrong. Nor immoral. But demonizing the rich has a second advantage for the left. In addition to making it easier to tax the rich and trick voters/taxpayers into thinking they are not the true target of higher taxes, the war on the rich covers up the 50-year failure of the Great Society. The Great Society was launched in 1965 with the promise that the government knew how to help the poor become middle class and self-reliant. Government spending on housing, healthcare and education would instill the poor with middle-class values such as hard work, self-reliance and a willingness to work and save today for a better tomorrow, maintaining a long-term perspective. But the Great Society spent some $14 trillion in giving money to the poor, or more often paying well-paid government employees to “provide services” to the poor, and has little or nothing to show for it in terms of improvements in savings, income, education or work. So rather than admit that they wasted trillions of dollars and concede that they should shut down government job programs that only benefit the Democrat party’s base, the left pivoted to a new problem. Not that the poor are poor, but that there is a large gap between the rich and poor.

This new problem—inequality—can be solved without helping to lift a single poor person out of poverty and into the middle class. One only needs to reduce the wealth and income of the rich. That way we will be more equal. All worse off. But more equal. It is possible for modern Democrats to reduce inequality without doing anything to help poor people or communities. The middle class can suffer while we “reduce inequality.” That they can do. To tax the rich; first undermine their right to keep what they create. Demonize them. To avoid embarrassing questions about the failure of the left’s “war on poverty” you just need to shift the focus to inequality.

‘Immigration Is Our Strongest Competitive Advantage’

Zitelmann: Donald Trump has certainly done some positive things in terms of tax policy and deregulation. At the same time, however, he has increased what was already an extremely high level of national debt and is pursuing protectionist trade policies. I have the impression that Trump has no clear market economy compass. How capitalist is Trump?

Norquist: It’s not clear whether Donald Trump has ever read Hayek. But his tax cuts are straight out of the Ronald Reagan/Art Laffer/Milton Friedman playbook. His de-regulation goes further than all previous presidents combined. His judges will strengthen and repair America’s commitment to the rule of law for a generation. And his unwillingness to be dragged into every stupid idea some European intellectual thought up—windmills, solar to replace real energy that really powers a national economy—has been a godsend. Those who wish to embroil America in every war in every quadrant of the globe have no ally in Trump. Trump knows that war is the enemy of liberty and fiscal prudence. Free trade and immigration are issues where Trump departs from President Reagan and Adam Smith. But as President Trump said before the coronavirus crisis—we are running out of workers in the United States. And the higher wages and jobs growth he delivered reduced the grumpiness of American voters who no longer lash out at immigrants and foreign competitors suspected of stealing their jobs. Trump’s tax cuts, de-regulation, sound legal system and respect for property rights delivered growth to America before the virus and will return when the virus is behind us. Trump’s growth silenced the concerns that drive protectionism and tariffs and stoke fears of immigration. Yes, the wall will be built. America will gain control of its borders, but it will maintain large and open doors. Immigration is our strongest competitive advantage over China, Japan, Russia and most of the world. And yes, our trade agreements need to ensure that our intellectual property is not stolen and reduce the ability of governments anywhere to subsidize trade and disadvantage foreign competition.

Zitelmann: What are your thoughts on the Fed’s low interest rate policy? What does this mean for our market economy system?

Norquist: The danger of near-zero federal interest rates is that borrowing money is seen as “almost” free. The deficit is not the problem. Overspending is the problem. The deadweight cost of government is total spending. The deficit is one element of the problem—like the visible part of an iceberg. But it is the larger, hidden mass of the iceberg below the water line that ripped the Titanic apart. If deficit spending is held down, and taxes are not raised, then there is a limit on spending. That is good. But if deficit spending is “free” or “inexpensive” because interest rates (today) are low, then public opposition to more and more government spending is reduced and government spending will be allowed to increase and weaken the economy.

#republicans #grover norquist #subhuman #american politics #forbes #class warfare #class war #2020 presidential election #bernie sanders #bourgeoisie #bourgeois ideology #ideology #ideoloji #ideologia

5 notes · View notes

usieldaca · 5 years ago

Text

DACA: Here To Stay?

It was a warm and cloudy morning on September 5, 2017. As I woke up, all the news outlets were flooded with breaking news. DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals was rescinded by President Donald Trump. Hundreds of thousands of DACA Recipients also known as “Dreamers,” were left with confusion, uncertainty and their legal status left in limbo. As a DACA recipient myself, little did I know that this decision would be met with pushback and legal challenges would proceed. A roller coaster of emotions were set in motion for dreamers.

DACA is a program that protects undocumented youth from deportation. This program was created by an executive order mandated by President Barack Obama on June 15, 2012. DACA recipients were brought to America at a young age and this country is the only place they know as their home. DACA enables immigrant youth to come out of the shadows, go to college and work legally. Recipients undergo background checks and other procedures by the USCIS to ensure eligibility. In order to maintain DACA status renewals are required every two years.

In January 2018 an order by U.S. District Judge William Alsup gave hope to DACA recipients as he ordered for DACA renewals to be put back in place. Nearly 690,000 dreamers, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, were safeguarded from deportation. However, The Trump Administration didn’t concede defeat. The battle to terminate DACA ensued.

On June 18, The Supreme Court ruled to reinstate DACA as it was a violation of law to end it. According to an article titled “News Tip: Scotus’ DACA Decision Major Win For Young Immigrants, Experts Say” in the Duke Today, “efforts to end it had been arbitrary and capricious. The Trump administration’s error, the court ruled, was procedurally unsound, a kind of power grab that violated institutional norms and administrative culture by not addressing the policy consequences of changing DACA.” It was a huge victory for DACA recipients, immigrant families and everyone that supports the program.

According to an article titled “Are DACA Students Still Safe to Stay?” dated April 25, 2017 in the New England Journal of Higher Education, from 2012 to 2016 the DACA program received approximately a million initial applications nationwide. Only 752,154 were successfully approved.

In Nevada, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, there are 12,100 recipients as of March 31, 2020. Of those, there are 9,700 in the Las Vegas Valley.

Some of those recipients go to school at University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

UNLV Student Juan Pablo Plascencia, recalled that day, “Well when President Trump rescinded DACA, I didn’t get scared because I knew there was a long, legal battle going on. There are amazing people in our community who fight for us specifically Senator Dick Durbin who I think is a great man. There are a lot of amazing lawyers that see us for who we are. We’re human beings and not just a pawn to be played with when politics come around.”

Plascencia doesn’t shy away from reality, “My mentality is pretty simple on this. I know my parents broke the law to bring me here. I was a child when I was brought here. I have no idea what happened. One day I was in Mexico. The next day I’m here in Las Vegas. It’s like time travel. That’s the way I explain it to people when they ask me but the thing is that my parents had to do something that even though it wasn’t legal, morally it makes sense.”

Many DACA recipients grew up unaware that they were undocumented. The harsh reality of who they are came at a young age. Many wanted to start employment or travel outside of the country.

Leslie Vazquez, University of Washington Tacoma student with DACA status recalled, “I first realized I was undocumented when I was in middle school. I actually wanted to travel to Mexico and my mom had to have a conversation with me about me not being able to leave the country.”

Growing up unsure of what the future has in store is terrifying. President Trump’s antics fueled fear and unpredictability.

“I felt like I couldn’t breathe and enjoy living in America. I could empathize with jewish people. I understood how they felt, be extra careful. Don’t say anything, don’t post anything. That might be used against you.” Plascencia said. “It was hard. As a history teacher, one of the things I always tell my students is to love your country. Love your country enough for when you see an issue, you want to go and fix it. I think President Trump is a hypocrite. He tells us that he’s going to treat DACA with kindness and a lot of heart. It’s a good thing for the DACA kids. He then puts his foot in our butt and files to remove DACA. Loses the court case and then he states he will file the proper paperwork to get this over. I’m sorry sir, am I just a pawn to you? Is my humanity not real? Are my efforts not good enough for you?”

Joe Biden became the U.S. President-elect earlier in November. Biden has been vocal about his support on DACA. On November 2, 2020, Biden tweeted, “Dreamers are Americans -- And it’s time we make it official.”

Vazquez said, “I am excited to know that Biden has won the presidency and I remain hopeful that he will be able to help us ‘Dreamers.’ It's easier to believe Biden when he says he will help us gain citizenship because we’ve had four years of someone who has consistently put us down. However, I am not going to get my hopes up until action is done.”

Although hope is not lost, it has dissipated for many DACA recipients.

“I saw who he appointed for his cabinet. He appointed the same woman that approved for family separation at the border under the Obama Administration. I just hope it’s not the same thing. Which it’s looking like it might be.” Plascencia said. “Personally, I have hope but at the same time I’m not holding my breath anymore. I’m not going to wait to live my life. I’ll do the best that I can under the system that I’m in. At the end of the day, I’m not going to beg for scraps. I’m a productive member of this society. I don’t see immigration being on top of Biden’s list. Right now we are in a pandemic and after the pandemic it’ll be the economy and after the economy we have another two year election.”

Furthermore, Plascencia explains his thoughts on DACA, “I did what I was asked to do, I signed up for DACA. I have done everything right, I’ve never broken the law but what I want is for politicians to make this right. We passed the test. DACA is a smashing success. There are 95 percent of us that are excelling in the program. Five percent have been sent back. That’s good, this is an audition. We have to prove to the American people but at the same time I’m not begging for scraps. I don’t beg for scraps but at the same time it has to be done in a way that makes sense. DACA to me makes perfect sense. You put us young people to audition. What was the audition? Exactly what it says on the applications. I think instead of democrats and republicans promising the world to us, I’d rather see some action. I need to see some movement.”

However, those that oppose the DACA program state that illegal immigration is being encouraged through its’ policies. According to an article titled, “Are DACA and The Dream Act Good For America?” in the Britannica ProCon, Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) said that DACA “encouraged more illegal immigration and contributed to the surge of unaccompanied minors and families seeking to enter the U.S. illegally.” In the same article, according to Karl Eschbach, PhD, “DACA will increase the undocumented population because those who don’t qualify for DACA will stay in the hopes of qualifying eventually, and more people will immigrate assuming coverage by DACA or a similar program.”

In addition, according to an article titled, “It’s Time to End DACA -- It’s Unconstitutional Unless Approved by Congress” in the Heritage, “Providing amnesty and potential citizenship to DACA recipients and other illegal immigrants before we have a secure border will only encourage even more illegal immigration, just as the 1986 amnesty in the Immigration Reform and Control Act did. That law provided citizenship to almost 3 million illegal immigrants and was supposed to solve the problem of illegal immigration. Yet within 10 years, there were another almost 6 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.

The federal government should be concentrating on enhancing immigration enforcement and border security to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into the country and reduce the number of them already in the interior of the U.S.”

As DACA continues to hang in the balance politically, recipients continue setting goals for their futures optimistically.

“I would love to graduate with a PHd in Neurological Psychology,” Plascencia said. “I would love to go to Medical School to practice Psychology. That’s something I believe I would be really good at. Again I’m not hoping for it, I’m just waiting to make my moves. When my parents came to America they had ten dollars in their pockets. Now, I’m about to purchase my own house, I have my own car.”

Additionally Plascencia added that he is working on his third degree at UNLV. He will be graduating with his Masters in Curriculum/Instruction in Secondary Social Studies. He is a social studies and history teacher at the Las Vegas Academy Performing Arts.

Plascencia reflects, “Education is the most powerful and important thing. I think that as a person I want to be more educated. I would love to become a citizen because I do want to vote. As a teacher it’s ironic I can’t vote but I teach my students how to.”

Vazquez is currently in the last quarter of obtaining her Bachelor’s degree in accounting at the Milgard School of Business. Vazquez and her parents own their own Mexican restaurant which has been open to the public for three years. “I hope that I will remain in the country for years to come. My ultimate dream is to get my CPA degree to help our community.”

As the uncertainty is still not over, recipients contemplate their decisions with valor.

“As a person who has DACA, I’m pretty much at the end of my road. I could go teach at the University in Canada, I could teach in a University in England, I could go live in Spain, Germany. But instead I’m choosing to stay because this is the only country that I know about,” Plascencia said.

3 notes · View notes

dirtyrottensocialist · 5 years ago

Text

America Has A Compromise Problem

Compromising is important, especially if you want to get anything done. Like any give and take situation, the deal has to be appealing to both sides. This can be difficult enough when the two sides are somewhat close together already, but what if they aren’t? What if one side wants something that is indisputably harmful to the other side? America’s compromises as of late aren’t really compromises at all.

I’m going to talk for a moment about the Overton window. From Wikipedia: “The Overton window is the range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time. It is also known as the window of discourse.” America’s current Overton window, at least when you watch any kind of news or professionally published widespread media, is somewhere between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. That’s what the media covers, it’s what is discussed as acceptable in many circles, and it is vastly different from most other developed countries.

The idea that universal healthcare is a “far left” idea is absolutely laughable in places like Denmark or Germany or New Zealand. It’s even laughable for many members of America’s younger generations. America’s hyper-capitalistic ideals have pushed the Overton window so far right that it’s considered “centrist” to think that antifa (the position of being against fascism - you know, the thing that Nazis did) is just as bad as being a Nazi. Basically someone is saying “we should kill all the Jews,” someone else is saying, “actually we should not kill any Jews” and the centrist says “wait, wait, wait, what if we compromise and only kill some of the Jews?” as if that’s an acceptable answer.

Media in America is largely owned by corporations. As such, the owners of most of these media outlets are actively invested in making sure the Overton window in America never skews far enough left so that they will lose profits. The ultra rich control the narrative, not allowing for anything on the actual left to see the light of day for discussion.

The reality is that there is a large portion of Americans, particularly in the Millennial and Gen Z ages, that are considerably to the left of the Overton window. You can see it in the protests that are happening all over America (and yes, they ARE still happening). These protests are largely led by young people who are tired of being dealt a bad hand by the economy, racism, climate change, exploitative healthcare, and many other systemic problems. Media has softened the demands to defund the police by saying, “no one actually wants to abolish police” even though that’s exactly what many people on the left want. There are real leftists living in your communities. Socialists. Anarchists. Communists. People who believe that the workers should own the means of production (no private companies). People who believe in all housing being free (eliminating landlords). People who believe money as a concept should not exist because it leads to haves and have-nots (only resource-based economy). People who believe there should be no president, no nations, completely open borders (as much as centrists will tell you that no one believes this, there are real people who whole-heartedly do believe in open borders). The growing left movement in America has grown very tired of agreeing to compromises that don’t actually do anything for their agendas or beliefs.

So now it comes to election season and we are faced with some serious choices. Decades of voting for the lesser evil has gotten us to this point. Skyrocketing unemployment, billionaires increasing their wealth by 50% profiting off of a pandemic, price gauging life saving drugs, a minimum wage that has been stagnant for more than a decade, college and housing costs pricing more and more people out of homes and education, not to mention a pandemic that threatens to be the deadliest disease we have ever seen because people are more concerned with making sure billionaires don’t lose money than making sure that everyone survives. America is a pit of despair right now. There are popular jokes about 2020 apocalypse bingo cards because of the increasing absurdity of circumstances in every passing month.

But here we are. Election season. It’s shaping up to be a showdown between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. The Overton window tells us that Joe Biden is the obvious compromise candidate, somewhere between Sanders and Trump. But that alienates an entire large group of people and potential voters, mostly those under 40. Joe Biden, the man who crafted the 1994 crime bill is not an appealing compromise for those who want to abolish police. Joe Biden, the man who has been credibly accused of rape, is not an appealing compromise for those who have experienced sexual assault and become physically sick at the thought of another abuser (see Brett Kavanaugh) being put in a high position of power. Joe Biden, the man who has said he would veto Medicare for All if it came across his desk, is not an appealing compromise for those who have been rationing insulin trying to pay the bills, eat, and also afford life giving medicine. Joe Biden is not an appealing compromise for those of us for whom Bernie Sanders WAS the compromise.

For many people my age, the only America we have known is the America that does nothing but benefit the most wealthy. We have seen countless black Americans murdered by a violent state. We have seen thousands upon thousands of people declare bankruptcy due to medical bills, and many more die because they could not afford care. We have seen our country refuse to do anything meaningful about climate change because the government is essentially owned by oil companies and their lobbyists. We have seen and experienced a massive student debt crisis that is making it almost impossible to get ahead. We’ve attempted to mitigate these travesties by voting “blue,” for the lesser evil, for the person with slightly less terrible policies. We’re tired of compromises that don’t concede anything to us at all. We’re tired of electoral politics that force us to choose between Voldemort and Darth Sidious. For many leftists, Bernie Sanders was our last hope for electoral politics.

One of my favorite Democrats once said: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” I would advise the DNC to consider this heavily when selecting their platform this year. It’s time to try a compromise that’s actually in the middle of the electorate for a change. If we are unable to do this, the guillotine jokes may end up not being jokes anymore.

0 notes

mobianflame · 6 years ago

Text

Qasem Soleimani: Consular service solidifies Iran and Iraq traveling suggestions - BBC News

The Consular service has actually hardened its own trip guidance for Iran and also Iraq after the murder of leading Iranian overall Qasem Soleimani in a United States airstrike.It notifies English nationals not to take a trip to Iraq, other than for important trip to the Kurdistan Location of Iraq, as well as just vital trip to Iran.Tensions are actually increased in the location-where the UK possesses 400 troops-after military commander Soleimani's death.Meanwhile Jeremy Corbyn has required an important appointment over the airstrike.In a letter to Best Official Boris Johnson, Mr Corbyn yearns for the Privy Authorities-the group that recommends monarchs-to meet and discuss the outcomes of the death.The killing of Gen Soleimani marks a major increase in tensions between Washington and also Tehran.There were chants of "death to The United States"in the roads of Baghdad on Saturday as mourners participated in a funeral succession for him.On Friday, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said"extreme retribution awaits the criminals" responsible for the attack, however a declaration coming from the Government claimed Gen Soleimani"was actually actively cultivating programs to

assault American ambassadors as well as service members in Iraq and also throughout the location". In its own recommendations, published on Sunday, the Foreign Workplace claimed there is actually a risk that English or even British-Iranian dual nationals" may be arbitrarily apprehended or even imprisoned in Iran

". "The criminal compensation method adhered to in such cases drops below international requirements,"it said.Foreign Assistant Dominic Raab claimed: "Given elevated strains in the region, the FCO currently suggest

folks not to travel to Iraq, along with the exception of the Kurdistan Area of Iraq, and to take into consideration meticulously

whether it's necessary to travel to Iran. Our team will certainly maintain this under assessment." Its own recommendations for British-Iranian dual nationals remains unchanged, cautioning them certainly not to travel to Iran.It happens as the United States has pledged to deliver 3,000 additional troops as a precaution.The UK has 400 soldiers based in the Middle East and also works together with United States interject the area.

Mr Raab has formerly advised for a soothing of pressures, adding:"Additional problem resides in none of our passions.

"' Incredibly unsafe scenario' BBC Updates understands the prime administrator was not cautioned about Friday's airstrike.Speaking on BBC Broadcast 4's Today programme, former foreign secretary Jeremy Search stated he assumed

it was" regrettable because, as one of the US's closest allies, I believe it's a crucial part of that connection that there are actually not a surprises."But it might also

have been actually considering that they really did not would like to put our company in a tough position of inquiring us to

produce a judgement as to whether our experts conceded or otherwise along with what was actually done." He included:" The UK can easily certainly not manage to become neutral if our team prefer to be actually a significant international gamer." However this is a very, extremely unsafe scenario as well as I presume that the work that our company possess

to perform, as being one of the United States's closest allies, is to utilize our effect to justify consistent United States policy." Creating to the head of state, Mr Corbyn talked to numerous questions featuring what the UK was told prior to the airstrike and what the government was carrying out to guarantee the safety and security of UK nationals.And he talked to whether, if it had actually been actually educated earlier, the government had revealed its opponent to the strike."Provided the severe attributes of the problems right now experienced through our country and also certainly the world consequently of the US assault, I would invite a prompt feedback to this ask for as well as stand prepared to go to any rundown meeting as quickly as organized,"he said.Earlier, Mr Corbyn called the killing of Gen Soleimani a" US assassination "as well as an"incredibly severe and dangerous increase ". He stated the UK "needs to urge restraint" coming from each

Iran and the US-and also asked for the government to"take on the hostile actions and unsupported claims stemming from the United States ". He added:"All nations in the location and past ought to look for to ratchet down the tensions to stay clear of growing problem, which can simply take additional suffering to the region, 17 years on coming from the disastrous invasion of Iraq. "Mr Corbyn became a participant of the Privy Council in

2015. Its members feature all former head of states and also cabinet ministers along with innovators of the opposition.What is the Privy Council?Media playback is actually in need of support on your unit The behaving forerunner of the Liberal Democrats, Mam Ed Davey, asked for a prompt claim coming from Mr Johnson about the UK's ranking, incorporating that Britain ought to" collaborate with a wider team of concerned states at the United Nations ".

Mr Raab carried out speak to US Secretary of Condition Mike Pompeo on Friday, although the amount of time of decision is actually certainly not known. 'Aggressive danger 'Mr Pompeo tweeted that he was actually"grateful that our allies identify the proceeding threatening risks posed by the Iranian Quds Pressure".

In a declaration, Mr Raab prompted "all gatherings to de-escalate" after the killing of Gen Soleimani.He said the UK"

acknowledged the hostile threat" Generation Soleimani posed, however "additional problem is actually in none of our passions ". The Foreign and also Republic

Workplace has actually advised British nationals to avoid any kind of rallies, marches, or trains in Iran over the 3 days of national weeping the country has asked for Gen Soleimani. BBC safety contributor Frank Gardner earlier claimed he carried out not believe any individual in the UK was actually given a sign the airstrike was heading to take area, including:" My sense is this has actually recorded the British government mostly through unpleasant surprise. "

This content was originally published here.

1 note · View note

reactionaryhater · 6 years ago

Note

Watch Innuendo Studios’ video “There is Always a Bigger Fish” and give us your thoughts on it.

Sounds interesting enough. I’m busy this week, but I’ll give it a look tonight and more or less stop to jot down my thoughts as they come. Warning: This will be LONG and RAMBLING.

The topic of the video, as Innuendo Studios (IS) claims, is “the core ideology of conservatism.” I should start by saying I’m not a conservative, in fact I’m ideologically at odds with much of what our Republican party does. Additionally, I’ve never really understood conservatism as a general concept. Like, if you bring up liberalism, or socialism, or progressivism, or whatever you call the Democratic party, I know some basic markers that distinguish these from other political beliefs. Conservatism, I’m not so sure. There’s the idea of small government and traditional values, but these are both relative to our society. And when they come at odds, which does the ideological conservative choose? So on that note evaluating this video might be difficult.

“Say for the sake of argument, you’ve got this friend.”

Oh boy, here comes a self insert fic. I’d like to call this a strawman, but I can’t have it both ways now. I will say arguing politics by private message sounds a bit pathological to me.……cough…Okay will this bickering be on the test?

“Republican thought.”

Okay, we’re not talking about core ideological conservatism here, we’re talking about Republicans. Good to keep in mind.

“If you didn’t believe your friend shared these assumptions, you’d basically be calling him a fascist or a sadist.”

That says quite a bit about the breadth the word “fascism” has for IS. Anyone who doesn’t believe “Do unto others” and isn’t clinically disordered is a fascist.

“And you conclude that, if you believe in democracy, you must believe in equality, and, if you believe in equality, you must believe in equal access to education, and must conclude that governments should help pay tuition.”

This is a chain argument, or to put it another way, a train of association. IS makes three logical steps which he outlines, from one thought to another. In principle, they look good and sound. In reality, many assumptions are made and many possible alternatives ignored, each step of the way. That means the more steps he makes, the more distant he gets from the starting point by an exponential factor.

Let’s start with the first conclusion: Democracy means everyone is equal. He suggests democracy doesn’t work unless everyone is equal (such as in education). I think the people who started the practices of democracy were much smarter than that. Even when all voters had to own land, they would have known not everyone was equally educated, equally virtuous, and equally informed. That was never the point. Democracy doesn’t assume everyone is equal, it assumes the majority of active citizens have the best interests of their society in mind.

I’d also like to point out how he ought to be explaining his belief that everyone is “equal but not equal.” Remember that meme about the fence? Different heights. If anything it’s the conservatives and the “privilege deniers” who believe in the most present equality. Now in an ideal world, if everyone is equal, they can surely educate themselves. But they’re not equal. But they SHOULD be equal. So they need assistance to become equal. Who’s going to MAKE us equal? He assumes the government in the third conclusion. But when did the government gain a monopoly on the power to enact change?

“He is often misinformed, but what if that isn’t the problem? What if he… actually believes something else?”

Uh oh, question begging incoming.

“A liberal is someone who tends to think democratically, and a conservative is someone who tends to think like a capitalist.”

I don’t accept this definition for ideological roots or for the parties as a whole, but I accept it for certain segments of the US political sphere. Those segments may not be equally represented or influential. They’re there, though, so that’s a start.

“It’s an egalitarian mindset; people gain power by…”

HAHAHAHAHAHA. I’m sorry, I just can’t. I can’t help myself. I must meme.

I get that he goes on to give the “People have the power” line, but that is a bit different. We the people ordained the Constitution, which grants power according to rules, and so on. We are not a direct democracy, nor, do I think, anyone today would believe our elected officials are mere employees.

“This is the idea of democracy, with the history of democracy being riddled with failures to live up to this ideal”

Not even IS, and as I said, pure egalitarianism is not by design in the US. I want to be clear I’m not saying egalitarianism is bad, nor am I saying that people should not be treated with equal degrees of respect – this is a very different discussion. I’m just addressing his claims about our political foundations here.

I agree with his description of capitalism.

I disagree that conservatives believe hierarchy is man’s natural state. Many many conservatives are devout Christians, and in Christian tradition, everyone in theory is equal under God. Many conservatives also believe capitalism is a means toward increasing the quality of life for all people.

“Power has to be earned.”

You mean *cough* by garnering votes? I mark this point as where he inserts the straw man that conservatives all want black people to be under Jim Crow again, which sure is a talking point of the far left, isn’t it, and yet not a talking point of the Republican party.

“All citizens are equal…is a legal fiction.”

So I wrote about how he cannot believe in equality before hearing this point, and honestly now. Someone who believes all people are equal does not advocate for money for the poor, because there are no poor. This sounds silly for me to say, but until he either defines equality in concrete terms or concedes that his equality is an “ought” not an “is” (bringing himself about halfway to this capitalist conservative) we won’t be able to go any further.

“Of any issue, simply ask: does this distribute power, or consolidate it?”

Does IS desire a more powerful central government, or a less powerful central government?

“If you’re in the middle, then you serve the king. Valar dohaeris. But, to everyone beneath you, you are the king.”

Ah, the privilege argument rears its ugly head at last. IS apparently thinks we live in, and the honest to God best analogy I can make here is, Soviet Russia at the height of corruption. Peons lick the boots of paper pushers. IS is right when he says he and conservatives can’t communicate, because the world he perceives is not the United States or just about any other developed nation. Here, paper pushers are treated like crap just as much, in fact, usually treated like crap by two sides. By the same token, a poor person’s vote is equal to a middle class vote (but only the rich have enough money to buy power, or a seat in college, or have the connections to get the job).

“And getting pissed at those above implies that those below have a right to be pissed at you.”

Just to hammer it home, this statement necessitates that middle management has real power to enact their own will, and everything I’ve heard from and about people in middle management suggests otherwise. Analogize to the mythical power of merely being white / male or white / male passing.

“A slight on them is a slight on all of us.”

All republicans are racist hillbillies stereotype.I notice how he just slipped this in without even a logical progression. In his grand argument, it’s actually a new premise.

[Analogy to Kingdom Hearts]

I don’t even.

“Savvy viewers may be remembering another political philosophy that is hierarchical, undemocratic, built on nostalgia, and that likes to cloak its policies in progressive camouflage”

Ooo, ooo, it’s the one I was just talking about, Soviet Russia. Oh, nope, I apologize, he has a single word that makes this answer slightly less than ideal, “nostalgia.” With that word, the answer is

“Fascism.”

Who knew nostalgia was of such moral consequence.

“If you don’t like what a business is doing, you don’t regulate it, you take your money elsewhere. You should favor the capitalist solution, not the democratic one.”

Is the collective action of masses to speak their mind not democratic? I understand if his intention is to claim the business will survive despite protest, but he doesn’t claim that. This implies an unusually limited definition of “democratic”: it must compel the operation of government. Whereas fascism and capitalism are defined broadly enough to describe associated, sometimes partial associated, values. I’m not sure what he’s trying to accomplish with this difference of definition, but it’s worth noticing.

“They will never be onboard with aiding the poor in any systemic way, and will, instead, champion charity and crowdfunding, because minnows getting to eat should always be framed as a gift rather than a right.”

Two things. First, charity is systemic. Crowdfunding is systemic, though maybe short-lived. I guess “systemic” now shares the same anemia of definition that “democratic does” in it must only apply to government action. (Unless it’s systemic racism…) Second, conservatives cannot believe both that minnows work for their own food (“How resourceful were you? How well did you play?”) and minnows only survive by being given food.

“But as long as you are trying to meet this mentality in the middle, you are leaving the door open for fascists.”

Did I predict that he hates moderates? Darn, I don’t think I wrote that one down. Well, another day, another radical.

“I recommend this one, because egalitarian thinking is one thing Nazis are bad at infiltrating.”

But people like Pol Pot are good at infiltrating it and, like, shooting a fifth of the population in a field.

Again, I don’t dislike egalitarianism, but that’s a pretty shallow argument in its favor.

I guess the sum of this video is to claim that conservatism is somehow the worship of capitalism, and then that conservatism is like fascism, and fascism shares a “hierarchical mindset” with capitalism. But he can’t bring himself to claim fascism is an extension of capitalism, because that would have us all wondering why Adolf Hitler went around decrying, “plutocracies in which a tiny clique of capitalists dominate the masses.“

So again we get an argument from looks-a-little-like. Fascism looks-a-little-like hierarchy, and so does capitalism. Nevermind so do state-based communism, socialism, regulatory agencies, even labor unions, and any organization that claims to be [inter]national. And our Democrats sure haven’t slowed down the hierarchy of our government.

On a final note, I kept getting confused thinking “bigger fish” was about the phrase “bigger fish to fry” until I went through the whole video and realize, no, it’s supposed to be “big fish in a small pond.” You know, like that Coldplay song. “Lost!”

Probably should have cleared things up and titled the video, “Lost!”

#innuendo studios #conservatism #republicans #capitalism #social justice

16 notes · View notes

cormacjelicich-blog · 6 years ago

Text

The Day That Was: Recalling the horror of the 2016 U.S Presidential Election.

It was approximately 7:30am when I awoke on the morning of November 9th, 2016. It was an important day, one I had been waiting on for many many months. I was a mix of nervousness and excitement. It was supposed to be the coda to a long, divisive and brutal presidential campaign. A new era of American politics was to surely be ushered in, or so we thought. November 8th or (the 9th in New Zealand) means wildly different things for different people. For supporters of Republican candidate Donald. J. Trump, his win was to be a sort of deliverance, their ceaseless faith in the controversial businessman rewarded after months of polls showing his campaign would fail miserably. In contrast, supporters of Hillary Clinton’s campaign were left confused and shattered. I fit into the latter category. I despised Trump and wanted him defeated terribly as I believed he had unearthed something insipid in the American psyche. I personally was not too fond of Hillary, but I still understood that the choice was unmistakably clear. On the morning of election day, I straddled conflicting feelings of hope and fear. The numbing feeling that maybe, just maybe he could win, never ceased to escape me. It was all that anyone at school could talk about. There was not much learning going on that day, and morning tea and lunch-time discussions inevitably turned to the upcoming election. I was quietly hopeful, arguing with a few avid Trump supporters that were annoyingly vocal at my all-boys Catholic high-school. I had faith in statistics and numbers and had always been a man that trusted polls.

(A tweet by renowned American Statistician, Nate Silver, showing that the Democrats would retake the senate)

Most of my morning was spent reading endless articles theorising on what the potential outcome of the election would be. There were articles on “Which celebrities will leave the U.S if Trump is elected” which I found amusing and strangely reassuring. Other tweets I distinctly remember include images of Hillary Clinton casting her vote in Chappaqua, NY or an image of Vice Presidential Candidate Mike Pence and his family casting their respective votes in Indianapolis, IN. The image that is forever seared into my brain from that day, however, is the picture of Donald Trump peering over onto his wife Melania’s ballot. For me, this picture exemplified Donald Trump’s distrust of women and blatant misogyny. What a dick, I thought, whilst scrolling through a seemingly endless barrage of political commentary and theory. At around 12.00pm in New Zealand, I remember the first results began pouring in. I was stuck in Computer Science class (my least favourite) The benefit of this was, of course, the computer which I used extensively to analyse the first results. My teacher, who already disliked me due to my incompetence with coding, caught me a few times and scolded me. The friend I was sitting next to in class kept peering over at my screen and asking questions. CNN’s bright red logo filling up my twitter feed is something I remember all too well.

(Results begin to pour in from Early Voting states: Vermont, Indiana and Kentucky)

Just past 1.00pm in New Zealand, it was lunch-time at school, and we all watched with bated breath, glued to our phones and laptops. The statistics began to turn against Clinton, whose original chance of winning levelled out at 98%. The number had now fallen to 78% and reports soon flooded in of Trump’s success in rural and ex-urban counties and regions. It was at this very moment that I began reckoning with the possibility of a Trump presidency. The numbers began to sour with every passing minute and soon enough I had lost faith in the statistics I had once trusted so very much. I recall form-time as a period of uncertainty. Reports began to show Trump’s unexpected success in several swing states — states crucial to winning the electoral college. By the end of the school day, I rushed home hurriedly and turned CNN on the television. Pundits were suggesting that the election was a toss-up or too close to call. The entire experience felt incrementally surreal and dream-like.

This cannot be happening, I thought to myself. I realised I had been naïve and had greatly underestimated the power of the Trump message. I realised American voters had chosen personality and populism over qualifications, plans and experience. My once squeaky clean view of America had been tarnished. His success appeared symptomatic of something much darker.

(An image showing Trump’s victory in the crucial swing-state of Ohio)

Later that night, my Aunt visited and we watched the unfolding horror live on Television. The graphs that pervaded social media almost seemed to mock me and wink at my credulity. Something on social media had never troubled me as much as seeing those graphs showing the possibility of a Trump Win at ‘95%’ At the same time, several Facebook Messenger group chats I was part of were unusually active. The messages that my friends were sending were characterised by a confusing mixture of anguish, disgust and humour. I have included a few screenshots of these group chats as I believe they are quite telling to the sombre, unexpected and upsetting nature of election day.

(Images taken from a few of my group chats with friends during the time where Trump looked poised to win the Presidency)

The election was so widely anticipated that in the wake of Clinton’s lose, some of my friends were too upset to even study for their exams or eat. The result felt catasphrophically upsetting. These messages show the ubiquitousness of the coverage on the election, and how easily it pervaded our everyday lives. Trump’s win created so much horror for a lot of people I knew. By 9.00pm that night, I remember a close friend streaming live on Facebook and discussing the election with an anger I did not know she was capable of. It was at that moment, as she broke down live on social media, that I understood how greatly Hillary’s loss had affected some people. I felt completely lost for the rest of that night, unable to sleep and paralysed with fear. I thought of my female friends who were forced to watch a candidate win the Presidency after flagrantly boasting about sexual assault. I thought of the LGBTQ community, a community that had already been through enough and now had to watch a man hold up the Pride flag with a smile painted across his face, a flag of which he had no business holding. And, finally, I thought of the many immigrants at my school, in my community and in my city, who had to see a man ascend to the highest office in America after using race and natioality as a tool to fire up voters. It all made me rather sick.

(Hillary Clinton concedes the Election to Donald Trump and apologises to the American people for losing the election.)

(Far-right internet talk show host Bill Mitchell celebrates Trump’s victory.)

(CNN commentator Van Jones argues that Trump’s win was due to backlash from white-middle class voters who felt left out and dissatisfied with government)

When I look back on the day of the 2016 United States Presidential Election almost three years on, it is easy to forget that I was not actually in America at the time of the election. The pervasive omnipresence of social media and mass-media allowed New Zealanders to believe, for just one day, that we were part of a humongous cultural and political event that could change the course of world history forever. As far as my personal experiences go, it felt as if I my well-being were at stake and in a sense it was. When I look back, I think more of the things I saw online and on Television rather than who I saw or where I was, which is quite telling to how cultural events may be experienced by individuals.

By Cormac Jelicich.

1 note · View note

drumpfwatch · 6 years ago

Text

State of the Union 2019 Commentary

It’s been a week and some change. Let’s talk State of the Union.

First off, I’d like to make a comment on the overall speech theme. Trump spoke of unity and everyone coming together, but that very morning he went to yell at how obstructionist and obnoxious the Democrats were being for not giving him his baby bottle wall. This man, who speaks of himself as the best deal maker in the world, and bragged he’d be able to get everyone to get together and make friends, sort out their differences, when he has done nothing but make demand after demand and concede no ground.

A compromise, Mr. Trump, is two people coming together and agreeing on something they’re both willing to do while conceding parts of what they want. It’s called a surrender if someone gives you everything they want while getting nothing. Dummkopf.

So with that, let’s begin at the beginning. I warn you right now I don’t want to go over every single point he made, but I’ll cover as many of them as I can and comment as needed. There are other commentaries out there, some as soon as the day after, and those are more than cool to have hanging around. I’m sure between all of those you can come up with a total summary of what he said, based on every single word. With that, let’s begin.

As per his theme, he started the speech by calling for unity and cooperation. All well and good for anyone else. We should avoid revenge politics - which is fucking rich coming from him, but whatever. Specifically, he calls congress to concern themselves “with the agenda of the American people” but…

Well, we’ll get to that.

He thanks some WW2 vets and then talks about how he’s interested in “America First.” People have on more than one occasion pointed out that given his actions, he seems to mean “America Only” when he says that, and that should be a premise that is upsetting to everyone but I have no doubt there is a large portion of the population of the American population who are more than happy to ignore the rest of the world. They already do, after all.

He then introduces Buzz Aldrin, saying that we’ll be going to space on American rockets again. And he’s actually, sadly, right there. Back in 2011, the Space Shuttle program was retired, and we’ve been relying on the Russian Soyuz capsule to get us into the space ever since. The successor to the Space Shuttle Program, the Space Launch System, has been slow coming for numerous reasons. It is, however, finally going to be ready to go in 2019 and will perform its first mission in 2020 - sending a craft to Mars. They wanted a rocket that could get a crew to Mars eventually, and the Senate…

Well, let’s just say congress stuck it’s fingers into the Space Launch System so much that it has been derisively called the Senate Launch System, and a lot of astronauts and NASA Engineers are concerned that it is basically a horrible, efficient money sink. Still, as an avid space fanatic, I’m glad we’re making efforts, at least. Though I’d point out that those efforts have been in motion long before he ever got there to direct them. This is, after all, the man that believed we could go to Mars before his first term was out.

He next goes on to talk about the economy, claiming that our middle class is bigger and more prosperous than ever before. This is untrue. While it seems to be complicated, the general consensus is that while the Middle Class has been stable in size, they tend to have less and less, especially in comparison to the upper class. That is where the real problem is, as well. The absolutely ridiculous wealth disparity. Though I get the feeling that removing taxes from private jets is totally gonna help with that. She says, sarcasm frothing in her mouth in a mixture of rage and bitterness.

He then claimed responsibility for the parts of the economic boom that have been happening. First of all, the economy is...not exactly booming. But there are good things happening in it. It’s sort of a whirlygig of insanity, if I’m honest. Now, you’ll hear me say this again a few other times, but I am not all that educated when it comes to economics. Economics is a chaos system and I much prefer stable ones with easy to predict results. Is a thing right or wrong, is this method an effective way of accomplishing the intended goal. Things like that.

That said, I do know a few things, and one of them is that a lot of people who do know a thing or two about economics point out that this economic boom began in 2016, which means it's entirely possible that this is a result of Obama’s policies were responsible, we don’t really know. Maybe Trump did have something to do with it, but it’s often not accurate to blame the problems or successes of an economy on a single thing. So this claim gets a big ol’ stamp of “UNVERIFIABLE” from me.

I can say that wages are not rising, or at least as much as he thinks. The Federal Minimum Wage was not changed since 2009, and lost about 9.6% of its purchasing power because of inflation. While some states have made major strides towards livable minimum wages have been made in places like New York and California, I’d be willing to bet dollars to donuts that if you removed the massive amount of wealth that people like Jeff Bezos make, you’d find that they are stagnant, or even lowering.

There’s a thought for a math rant sometime.

Anyway, he then praises the 5 million people who got off of food stamps. First of all, the number is 3.5 million. Second of all, it’s a bit more complicated than that. To summarize, while the decrease in unemployment is helping, there’s another little niggling thing. There was a provision in the law that basically said you could turn off some of the safety nets if employment rates rose, and a lot of states decided not to pay for those benefits. I won’t argue whether or not that was a right or wrong decision, but I will say you don’t get to wave around the number of people who are off a program as a victory when the reason they’re off it isn’t because they don’t need it, but because they were kicked off it.

We’re the hottest economy in the world, he says! And he’s wrong. I mentioned before that we’re in a weird sort of “Good Things, Bad Things” phase, but I don’t think I need to tell anyone that the stock market has been all over the place, falling and rising considerably at random. Meanwhile, S&P has downgraded America’s credit score. I think we’ve got a problem, and I know we’re not the hottest economy.

He then goes onto say that the unemployment rate for people of color is the lowest it’s ever been. And shockingly, he’s right on this one. Sort of. The Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the rate of unemployment for hispanic people and black people actually went down, and was at one point the lowest it’s ever been. Asian unemployment has sorta been all over the place. What makes it strange, however, is that each of these groups had a random and sudden spike since November/December of last year, while for whites it’s been pretty stagnant. Last hired, first fired, I guess.

He also talks about the same with disabled people and that is blatantly untrue. While it seems the number of people who qualify for disability also is going up, they’re not getting employed any faster.

I should also mention that even if we could point to one specific thing as responsible for these changes, I doubt it would be the fault of the man who himself wouldn’t house or hire black people.

He also celebrated getting rid of the estate tax. Which yes, he did. That is not necessarily a good thing. He acts like it applies to small businesses and farmers, but it doesn’t. One person said on the matter “If you don’t feel comfortable calling what you own an estate, then you probably aren’t affected by the estate tax.” You and your guilded crotch spawn and protected up to 10 million dollars. Only after that is your wealthy taxed on death, and only to prevent the the existence of a permanent landed gentry. The only people benefiting from the end of the estate tax are literal millionaires, who can afford to give some of that dosh to the community.

He then talks about Obamacare, and how he get rid of the Individual Mandate. He claims this was the most unpopular part of the law, and he’s right, but analysts point out that it’s more complicated then Thing Bad So Get Rid Of. Without the Individual Mandate to get people motivated to apply for coverage, a lot of people simply won’t get insured. Further, the whole point was that forcing the younger people to pay for insurance when they’re less likely to need it helped to add money to the pool that could be used to help cover the people with pre-existing conditions or complications. That said, it’s also a good thing not having people pay for coverage they can’t afford, so...it’s complicated.

Trump then bragged about cutting the most regulations of any President ever, and I won’t deny that he has. I will, however, point out that this is a horrible thing that should concern and frighten all of you. While some of those regulations may seem arbitrary, literally every one of them was written in the blood of some innocent person who died so a corporation could make an extra buck. We’ve already seen an increase in food poisoning and infections and the increase in food recalls since 2013 has been kind of horrifying. Trump has been eagerly cutting regulations to “Pre-1960s” levels. You know, before we had seatbelts. It’s very harmful to cut those regulations, and it needs to stop.

He then says that America has corporations coming back in record numbers. On this, he is also not wrong. The Jobs report was very good, and we should all be happy about that. That said, whether or not he is the one to thank for that is a bit more complicated, as usual. It turns out that some of these gears were set into motion when Obama was in office. Some of them are just the effects of a slow recovery process since the 2009 Recession. That said, they did take a sharp rise in 2017. So yay for him, I guess.

Except, again, if deregulation is how you’re doing this, then you’re doing it wrong. We should not be sacrificing the blood of American people so that a few already stupid wealthy people can get even more stupid wealthy. The reward is not worth the cost.

He then goes on about how we’re the number one producer of oil in the world. This claim is untrue. There has, however, been a boom in oil and natural gas production due to things like the invention of fracking and loosening of regulations that goes all the way back to the Bush Era. The rate is increasing such that by sometime into the 2020s, we will be the greatest producer of oil and natural gas, at least privately. Considering those materials are murdering our planet this is also not good news, but since Global Warming is, of course, a conspiracy cooked up by the Chinese to steal American Jobs, that doesn’t matter. We are also not a net exporter of energy, by the way, but are on are way to becoming one.

Then things get...weird. Everyone starts chanting “U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!” in this really low and creepy tone that I was frankly a bit creeped out by. It was like these people thought they were at a football game and not a session of Congress. Then again, this is my first time really sitting down and paying attention to the State of the Union, so this may be normal. I just didn’t like it.

What should, however, terrify everyone is his next babbling remark. He spends five minutes or so going on a rant about how “If there is going to be peace in legislation, there cannot be war and investigation.” Which, frankly, reminded me of a mafia frontman. “Lovely country you got here, shame if somethin’ were to happen to it. You noisy folks stink’ yah nose into my bosses business makes it real hard for him to keep wild guys like Big Jim ova deya under control. I can’t promise you won’t upset him wid all this.”

Sorry, trumby. You don’t get to talk about the need to stop our adversaries when you may well have been put in office by one.

Ughk, I hate using that word. Adversaries. It makes it sound like we have a boat load of enemies, when in reality we have like, 3 or 4, and otherwise a series of complex political relationships. Like we can’t work together with those people for a better future if we all just calmed the fuck down.

Like they’re not people.

Whatever. There are more important things to worry about.

Like how he goes on to mock the democrats for not approving his nominations. Even though a whole boatload of them are sketchy as fuck, should have never even been approved at all, or were just never filled by Trump in the first place.

Also can I just say that it’s fucking rich hearing aa man like Trump complain about not getting a nominee approved after what his party pulled with the Supreme Court? We call that hypocrisy.

He then goes on to talk about making life easier for prisoners and punishing people who abuse our veterans. Now, I could point out that prison reform was actually Barack Obama’s whole big thing and he passed a lot of laws in that regard, and Trump has not, and Former President Obama also passed VA reform in 2014 that allowed for people who mistreated veterans to be harshly punished. That said, Trump has been making further strides on those initiatives, and in fact his most approved and liked legislation is the First Step Act. These are the sorts of policies that really can make life better for people, and it’s nice to see everyone getting behind them. Ofcoursewecouldfurtherthesegreatstridesbyclosingdownforprofitprisons, andotherthingsthatimcertaindontappealtoarepublicanmindset, but that’s for another day. What I’m saying here is that as much as I don’t like it, I have to admit Trump has done a good. I don’t care who past them, how they developed, they were good things that happened. Yay! Good job Trump, you get a big shiny gold star.

We then move on to the Racist section of the speech. He starts by talking about the Migrant Caravan and I am shocked at how wrong and full of hatred this man is. He claims these refugees are an “onslaught” of illegal aliens when they’re all coming to America to seek asylum. You know, something that’s completely and totally legal. But no, this is an INVADING FORCE of ILLEGAL ALIENS that need to be stopped with 3,750 more Soldiers with GUNS. They managed to make it all the way to the American border with only one small kerfuffle with the Mexican border police, before arriving at the American border not to see Lady Liberty’s open arms welcoming the hopeless and downtrodden, the weary and poor, but instead heavily armed and barricaded troops who would then go on to use tear gas on them. Is that the America we want to show to the world?

Now, to his credit, Trump admits that Immigrants enrich our society - which is entirely true. Yes, there’s a bit of stress on lower-wage jobs when they first arrive, but that’s minimal in comparison to the benefits. Not that saying that to someone who got laid off and replaced with a migrant is no consolation, I fully understand, but there are ways to help these problems. Also, side note, if he believes immigrants are so awesome and enriching to our society, then he would be more than happy to have them enter the country. But the immigration system here is a convoluted mess of insanity that takes forever to get anything done and then occasionally does nothing, and Trump has just been making it worse. Just a thought.

Now I wrote an entire post about the wall, so I won’t go into it too much here. But the wall is an expensive, stupid, and ineffective idea. Drugs aren’t coming through skirmishers who are dodging around the border, they’re coming through ports of entry. The San Diego wall he was talking about isn’t nearly as effective as he pretends, and it didn’t really start working until the entry port in that area was spruced up. Smuggler still break through it all the time, as well, to the point where an area of it is called “Smuggler’s Gulch.” It also has trapped migrants into paying more to cross to the bad guys, taking riskier and more lethal routes, and actually trapping “illegal” migrants in who may want to leave. Most of the time, men would come up, do some work for cash, then go home once they felt they had enough, but now they’re coming, staying, and bringing their families.

Trump also points out that there were people in that room who voted for the wall, but I reckon the immense amount of insanity that came from that previous attempt are why a lot of people don’t want to do it again. Trump says that “No issue better illustrates the divide between America's working class and America's political class” but in truth, 60% of Americans are strongly opposed to the wall. The wall is a lost, stupid cause, and Trump needs to give it up before he hurts himself with his flailing about it.

OH, and just as one last cherry on the cake, it won’t stop sex trafficking either. Most traffickers bring there people in through on legal Visas, which they are then forced to overstay as those visas are held from them. In fact, over 80 anti-trafficking organizations got together to say that Trump's comments on the matter were actually harmful to efforts to stop this stuff.

He then goes on to tell the story of the Maddison family. I honestly don’t remember what it specifically was, because they are just a prop to garner sympathy for his position, and I’d actually be fine with that if the idiot didn’t use it to spread a lie. This family lost ones they love to MS13 members. That’s horrible and tragic and very sad, and I feel for them and wish it hadn’t happened. But acting like this is how every “illegal immigrant” operates is just a flat out lie. While the actual numbers are hard to tell, we know enough to say that if you strip away the illegal crime of coming here when not allowed, “illegal” immigrants commit 16% less crimes then the native-born population. Most of them are just people who want to escape an insane life and live the American Dream. But, see, they’re hispanic, so they can’t. You have to be white to be an American.

So with all of that said, let’s jump ahead to a cute moment where he talks about women taking 53% of the open jobs. Again, not his fault but go off I guess.

He then goes on to celebrate the women in Congress, of which there are more than ever before. Hurrah! I appreciate that little wink and nod, and in fact Donny, you get a gold star for this one too because this one is your fault.

By proxy.

Pretty much every one of those women ran for office because they hated you, your policies, and your stupid ugly face. They’re not there because they like you, they’re there because they want to stop you. So I think I’mma just take that shiny gold star away.

Next, he bounces back to talking about the economy, because Trump can’t focus on a single thing. Again, I won’t say much on this because economics is not my speciality, but people who DO know a thing or two about economics are pretty much in agreement that tariffs are a tool, and not a very good one. The analogy I like to use goes something like this. Imagine tariffs as a double edged knife you’re going to use to stab someone you don’t like. You’re already dealing with a weapon that’s not the safest, but guess what? This one also doesn't have a hilt, or a guard, or a pommel or anything. It’s literally just a long, serrated sheet of iron with a point on one end. So whenever you hit the other guy, you’re cutting yourself too. You can’t not.

Tariffs need to be used with the precision of a scalpel, and only if they’re determined to be the right tool for the job. And that’s without accounting for the unintended consequences like how rich people can probably find a way to avoid tariffs so they hurt the poorer people more, or you know, starting a trade war because the other people can just pass tariffs on you too?! And if any of you think this gigantic flatulating, tiny-handed orange with a racist stick coming out of its ass is capable of “precision” then I have a bridge I’d very much like to sell you.

He also goes on to talk about NAFTA again, and I’m gonna have to plead ignorance on this one. I don’t know if NAFTA is or is not a good deal, or if UMCA is a better one. I don’t know enough about economics and I don’t know enough about the laws themselves. I’m at least grateful the idiot didn’t cancel NAFTA before enstating UMCA, and those people who are smarter than me I keep talking about say that Mexico and Canada may not be in a mood to negotiate a new trade deal. So who knows. I’m not going to say much else on the matter.

So then we move on to infrastructure brieful. Trump talks about how it’s crumbling and needs repair, and he’s not wrong. The infrastructure report card for the US is, frankly, abysmal. But this begins a trend on a couple of topics.

He goes on to eagerly talk about how we need to improve health care, and lower drug prices! That we’re going to get rid of HIV in 10 years! That Childhood Cancer is going to be eradicated! Everyone gets paid family leave! All this wonderful pie-in-the-sky stuff that is super cool to hear him talk about, and I’d be totally behind him….

If he were actually doing anything on these matters. Trump talks a big game on these things, but hasn’t made any moves. Whenever he starts to, his business buddies step in and explain why they’re going to lose money and he stops.

So! He then moves on to talk about the legislation in New York that protects women’s rights to get an abortion anytime and how horrible it is that they’re murdering babies.

I think the response the white-clade congress women gave was the best.

I think the look on Angela Ocasio-Cortez’s face is the best, but the look on Angelia Ocasio-Cortez’s face and I think that’s Kathleen Rice giving the stink eye.

I don’t want to get into a debate about abortion, because that really is the best way to get everyone everywhere ever to hate you. I will say this, however. The law more or less only applies to pregnancies that would kill the mother or if the baby is already dead, and it wouldn’t matter if it didn’t.

Do you honestly think a person is going to go throw eight months of the most harrowing and obnoxious process the human body is capable of performing and then just suddenly decide “You know what? I don’t want this baby anymore.” If you’re that far along you either wanted the baby and were willing to suffer for it, or you never wanted the baby and were prevented from getting an abortion when it would’ve been kinder. The law isn’t about murdering babies, it's about letting women have control over themselves and their bodies. Acting like it’s some horrible evil that happened just makes you look dumb.

We then go onto nonsense about military bravado. Trump yammered about how he forced our allies to pay their fair share in NATO - which is honestly a kettle of fish I want to talk about in its own post, but suffice it to say it’s interesting everything he stresses and hates NATO for makes matters easier for Putin.

The real thing I want to talk about is the nuclear treaty he eventually meanders into like a toddler into a wall. Look, I’m not going to pretend that I understand the intricate diplomatics of nuclear negotiations, but even I know that YOU DO NOT ARBITRARILY CANCEL A TREATY THAT PREVENTS NUKES FROM BEING BUILT. You want an arms race?! This is how you get an arms race!

So what if Russia is “flaunting it” and ignoring it? I do not give one single solitary flying fuck. You negotiate a treaty that makes them suffer consequences - or better yet, stop not making them suffer the consequences they’re supposed to when they pull that shit - and you do it while the other treaty is still active. The last thing we need right now is a nuclear war and I don’t want to fucking hear that you’re taking Russia out of a treaty that at least somewhat contained them.

This man is going to get us all killed, I swear to Athena.

He then starts saying that “oh, the world would be in Nuclear war with South Korea if it weren’t for him, and he’s just wrong. I mean I know the nature of reality is such that there’s no real way to measure the tiny micro changes in the fabric of events that could lead to a given result, but I can say for damn sure that North Korea became more aggressive after Trump took office, and that their nuclear problem is largely for deterrent purposes because they are afraid of. Not that anyone should have nuclear weapons. Point is, this claim is bullshit, and I don’t need to source anything because it’s fantastical.

Next up is Venezuela, and his whole...spat against socialism. First of all, socialism is not responsible for the collapse of Venezuela because it wasn’t socialist. Those close to Maduro call his state a narco mafia government under the guise of socialism. It’s complicated - like everything else here is - but it can basically be summarized that instead of gathering material in the government and using it to support the people, it gave all that to big companies and then just kept taking and taking. Because that’s what unregulated big companies do. There was no market.

That said, even if Venezuela had been socialist in the truest sense, that doesn’t mean that socialist policies couldn’t work or shouldn’t be used. When applied properly (with a mix of capitalism, in my opinion), you can create a prosperous country that takes care of everyone by skimming off the top of those who have much and giving to those who have little. We’ve seen it work in different circumstances before, and even an entire country that made it work up until Stalin decided to take it over and twist its efficacy into bullshit.

He then talks a bit about Israel and Palestine, which is another basket of snakes I refuse to open other then to say that treating it as casually as he does is stupid. Israel and weird creepy end times Christians are the only people who actually don’t want a two-state solution. Sooo yeah.

Next, he speaks on how he’s done with the war against ISIS and that the troops are coming home, but fails to give a time frame and talks about not fighting an endless war - something I’d be more willing to believe if he wasn’t spewing money into the military like a sick man on laxatives does into the toilet. But whatever, I’m all for both of those things, so if he does them I’ll compliment him accordingly and apologize for not believing him.

The last thing I really want to talk about is how he brags about getting out of the Iran Nuclear Deal. That was actually working just fine and had finally squeezed Iran into cooperating and now they don’t have to while still giving them breathing room for their civilian population. But that is a complicated matter, that, again, is more difficult to ascertain than “Thing Good” or “Thing Bad.”

From there, the rest of the speech is just chest beating and bravado. Emotional appeals about how great America is and how free we are and blah blaah blaaah. I actually don’t have a problem with this - the swelling call to action at the end of the speech is a very effective tool and it’s not like I haven’t used emotional manipulation myself, even in this very article. But the point is that it’s not factual - it’s not meant to be criticized as a series of claims or even critiqued at all. It’s bravado, pure and simple. Trump is good at it, and he did a good job with it here.

Before I conclude though, I just want to quickly comment on one thing. Him derailing antisemitism is hilarious. You’re like 4 years too late on that bro.

Anyway, conclusions.

Most of the problems with this speech can be summed up with “It’s not that simple, idiot.” The world is a complicated place and Trump tried to simplify it. His ignorance to fully explain the complexities - or, as the case may be, even bother to understand them - has led him to misinform people live on TV. I’m not going to spend time talking about whether it was deliberate or not, I have long since given up and trying to determine where Trump’s evil ends and his stupid begins.

I will say that I give him one or two points for doing the things right, but given how much else was disgusting and, frankly, hateful, it’s very much “even a broken clock is right twice a day” type thing. Trump’s state of the Union was a cavalcade of lies and misjudgements, interspaced with bravado and unnecessary calls to his god. This is a secular nation, people. I should not hear about God no less than 4 times in the most important speech the country makes.

Hopefully he’ll be out of office soon.

#TheDrumpfWatch #Wednesday Essays #by Phoenix

3 notes · View notes

underthewingsofthblackeagle · 3 years ago

Text

Far-right wins in Italy: What to expect from Giorgia Meloni

youtube

Early results from Italy's election show a clear victory for an alliance of right-wing parties, paving the way for Giorgia Meloni to become Italy's first female prime minister and its first far-right leader since Benito Mussolini. But record low turnout has cast a shadow over the poll.

youtube

The center-right coalition led by nationalist Giorgia Meloni secured a parliamentary majority in Italy's general elections on Sunday, according to exit polls. Speaking early Monday, Meloni said Italians had sent "a clear message" in backing her alliance. "If we are called upon to govern this nation, we will do so for all Italians, with the aim of uniting the people, of exalting what unites them rather than what divides them," she told reporters. "We will not betray your trust." Her remarks came shortly after the main center-left group, the Democratic Party, conceded defeat. Politicians across the ideological spectrum in Germany have expressed concern about Giorgia Meloni's electoral success. However, the far-right AfD voiced support for Meloni, who looks likely to be Italy's next leader. Meloni said she has an unbroken relationship with history. Dictator Mussolini was "a complex personality," she has said in interviews. Even today, many Italians don't think everything was bad under Mussolini. Meloni has not clearly distanced herself from fascism; in her 2021 autobiography, she wrote that she is aware she is navigating a political minefield. "We are children of our history. Of our whole history. As is the case with all other nations, the path we have traveled is complex, much more complicated than many want to make known," she wrote. She does, however, reject the cult of the leader common to fascism, she added. But when Meloni holds press conferences at the party headquarters, a fascist symbol is always in plain view — the logo of the Brothers of Italy. It's a stylized flame in the Italian national colors — green, white and red — an eternal flame that burns figuratively at Mussolini's grave. "I have nothing to apologize for in my life. But in two out of three television discussions, I'm supposed to talk about history and not about current politics. I don't think that's right." Last fall, in preparation for the election campaign leading up to the vote on September 25, Meloni sent out internal memos to party groups instructing them to stop making extreme statements, to refrain from making references to fascism and, above all, to refrain from the so-called Roman salute, a gesture with an outstretched right arm which resembles the Hitler or Nazi salute. The politician wants to move the party from the political fringes, from the extreme right to center right. Meloni is seeking to remold the party and pitch it as a conservative champion of patriotism that appeals to the middle class to form a coalition with other right-wing parties — Matteo Salvini's League and Forza Italia, led by former premier Silvio Berlusconi. "If she has made it this far in Italy, it's thanks to all those who have whitewashed her — from the media who insist on calling Salvini and Meloni center right to Berlusconi and the Grillini [followers of the left-leaning 5-Star Movement — Editor's note], who brought her to power, and a disoriented center left that underestimated and legitimized her," said Alba Sidera, a Spanish journalist who has for years researched the Italian far right. "Meloni did not suddenly appear out of nowhere. She has been preparing to become prime minister for years." Born in 1977, Meloni joined the youth wing of the neofascist Italian Social Movement party when she was 15 to take a stand against the far-left terror that plagued Italy during that era. She later led the student branch of the far-right National Alliance, was elected to the Italian Parliament's Chamber of Deputies in 2006, and became Italy's youngest minister two years later. At the age of 31, she took over the youth portfolio in Berlusconi's government. Ten years ago, Meloni co-founded the Brothers of Italy, which she has led since 2014. In 2020, she also took over the chairmanship of the EuropeanConservatives and Reformists party, which includes, among others, the Polish ruling party, PiS. Meloni headed into the election campaign with the populist slogan "Italy and Italian people first!" She has called for more family-friendly benefits, less European bureaucracy, low taxes and a halt to immigration. She wants to renegotiate EU treaties, and her party rejects abortions and same-sex marriage. In terms of economic and foreign policy, the trained foreign language secretary is relatively inexperienced. She has spent most of her political career as a member of parliament and a party official.

#Italy #Giorgia Meloni #Italy General Election #Brothers of Italy #Silvio Berlusconi #Matteo Salvini #Forza Italia #Lega Italia

1 note · View note

xtruss · 4 years ago

Text

Afghanistan and the Haunting Questions of Blame

In Senate testimony, the generals acknowledged America’s “strategic failure” in its longest war, and their differences with Biden.

— By Robin Wright | September 30, 2021

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the end of the war in Afghanistan.Photograph by Patrick Semansky / Getty

After the First World War, a conspiracy theory dubbed Dolchstosslegende—or “being stabbed in the back”— was popularized in Germany to explain its historic military defeat. The myth claimed that the war had actually been lost by weak civilians who had caved to the enemy, signed an armistice, and stabbed in the back a brave German military that would otherwise have won.

“There were echoes of that after the war in Vietnam,” Stephen Biddle, a Columbia University professor and the author of “Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle,” told me this week, as top U.S. military leaders testified about America’s defeat in its longest war. “The loss in Vietnam was all President Lyndon Johnson and the feckless civilians who wouldn’t let us do it right.” Donald Trump invoked the same conspiratorial idea to explain just about everything that went wrong during his Administration, including his election loss. “Stab-in-the-back myths can be poisonous in all sorts of ways,” Biddle warned.

A month after the Biden Administration completed the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, Washington is struggling to understand how its vast human, military, financial, and diplomatic investment, made over two decades, simply collapsed, with the Taliban sweeping back into power and the United States scrambling to get out. The rancorous debate over blame threatens to further divide the nation. In two days of testy and occasionally snarky questions, members of the Senate and House challenged the three men who oversaw the war’s end to explain it. They were painfully candid. And there were plenty of mea culpas.

“We helped build a state,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told a Senate panel on Tuesday. “But we could not forge a nation.” He questioned whether the United States ever even had the right strategy—or, over two decades, whether it had “perhaps too many strategies?” The United States now has to acknowledge uncomfortable truths, he said. “The fact that the Afghan Army that we and our partners trained simply melted away—in many cases without firing a shot—took us all by surprise. And it would be dishonest to claim otherwise.” General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and America’s most senior military officer, bluntly conceded failure at an “incredible” cost. “Strategically the war was lost,” he told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “The enemy is in Kabul.”

The testimony revealed a chasm between what President Biden claimed came out of a lengthy consultation with his generals and what the Pentagon advised. The military recommended keeping a residual force of twenty-five hundred U.S. troops in Afghanistan, General Kenneth (Frank) McKenzie, Jr., the head of Central Command, testified. The goal was to prop up—psychologically even more than militarily—President Ashraf Ghani’s fragile government and Afghan security forces to allow more time for elected leaders in Kabul to negotiate with the Taliban on the makeup of a transitional government. The rivals had been talking since last September, and the Taliban had refused to make major concessions. Under the plan, U.S.-led nato forces would have been able to hold Bagram (a strategic air base that provided air support to Afghan forces; it was abandoned during the U.S troop drawdown). The timing of a future withdrawal would then depend on conditions, such as a successfully brokered peace, and not tied to an arbitrary date.

The sworn testimony was in stark contrast to the version Biden has offered the American public. Last month, the President claimed that the military never advised him to stay. In an interview, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked him, “So no one told—your military advisers did not tell you, ‘No, we should just keep twenty-five hundred troops. It’s been a stable situation for the last several years. We can do that. We can continue to do that’?” Biden replied, “No. No one said that to me that I can recall.” The White House has been scrambling to rectify the discrepancies. “These conversations don’t happen in black-and-white, like you’re in the middle of a movie,” the White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters. Pressed by Republicans about their conversations with Biden, the Pentagon leaders declined to criticize him. “I was present when that discussion occurred and I am confident that the President heard all the recommendations and listened to them very thoughtfully,” McKenzie testified. “That’s all any commander can ask.”

Other themes emerged from the testimony that may prove more important in understanding the scope and consequences of an epic failure by the world’s most powerful nation against a guerrilla insurgency that lacked both armor and air power. The fallout will extend well beyond South Asia. “Our credibility with allies and partners around the world, and with adversaries, is being intensely reviewed by them to see which way this is going to go,” Milley told the Senate committee. “I think that ‘damage’ is one word that could be used, yes.”

A deeper assessment of America’s mistakes, which were many, is still to come. “This is a twenty-year war,” Milley told the House committee on Wednesday. “It wasn’t lost in the last twenty days, or even twenty months, for that matter. There is a cumulative effect to a series of strategic decisions that go way back.”

Milley cited many decisive factors and pivots: he noted the problem of Pakistan offering sanctuary (There were NO SANCTUARIES. These people live on the both sides of the borders. IT’S ALL BULLSHIT. They cross borders freely without any restrictions.) —for decades, and continuing to this day—to the Taliban’s fighters and leadership. The U.S. military was just a thousand metres from Osama bin Laden’s hideout in Tora Bora in the first two months of the U.S. intervention in 2001; the Al Qaeda leader slipped away into Pakistan, where he hid for another decade.The general didn’t get into politics or diplomacy, but none of the four Presidents who waged the war was able to get Pakistan, a nuclear power which sees the Taliban as an ally against its archrival, India, to contain the extremist movement. Did he know why? Because Fascist Terrorist India is an ally of the US now to contain China. It’s quite sure that both India and the United States can’t F*** with China. China will beat the S*** of them and that’s for sure. US abandoned it’s old ally Pakistan because of India. The Pentagon leaders admitted to other mistakes: poor U.S. intelligence; endemic Afghan corruption exacerbated as the U.S. poured billions of dollars into the country; the Doha agreement negotiated between the Trump Administration and the Taliban that excluded the elected Afghan government; and especially the U.S. military’s fundamental misreading of the Afghan military’s lack of leadership, morale, and will. Here Braindead General failed to mention the hidden agendas and dirty tricks of the United States’ “FAKE WAR ON TERRORISM” in the region. Well equipped with modern warfare machineries, WAR CRIMINAL United States and its War Criminal puppets, UK, FRANCE, GERMANY, ITALY, AUSTRALIA and the WEST still got the well deserved deep f*** by the native WARRIORS, THE TALIBAN, and YET BLAMING PAKISTAN for their failure of NON WINNABLE FAKE WAR ON TERRORISM. WTF? Pakistan absolutely did the right thing to take care of it’s own interest first. Pakistan don’t give a damn f*** to the ‘Invader War Criminal United States’ and or to it’s ‘War Criminal Puppet Allies’ when it’s comes to the SOVEREIGNTY of PAKISTAN.

Austin, a former four-star general who served in Afghanistan, was explicit in a stream-of-consciousness list of the mistakes the U.S. made in simply misunderstanding Afghanistan. “That we did not fully comprehend the depth of corruption and poor leadership in their senior ranks,” he said, “that we did not grasp the damaging effect of frequent and unexplained rotations by President Ghani of his commanders, that we did not anticipate the snowball effect caused by the deals that Taliban commanders struck with local leaders in the wake of the Doha agreement, that the Doha agreement itself had a demoralizing effect on Afghan soldiers, and that we failed to fully grasp that there was only so much for which—and for whom—many of the Afghan forces would fight.” A fatal flaw in U.S. strategy, the Pentagon officials said, was trying to create a military that was a “mirror image” of the sophisticated U.S. military in a poor South Asian nation with limited literacy. It was costliest for Afghans. Somewhere between sixty thousand and seventy thousand members of the Afghan security forces died in the twenty-year war, compared to more than twenty-four hundred U.S. service members. An estimated forty-six thousand Afghan civilians perished, too. The United States had the technology to track the Afghan military in its fight with the Taliban, Milley said, but failed to grasp how its pullout would affect Afghan morale. “You can’t measure the human heart with a machine,” he said.

Given past claims by both Republican and Democratic Administrations, the testimony was chilling and will offer fodder for historians for decades. The Pentagon spent eighty-three billion dollars to train and outfit the Afghan security forces. Eight hundred thousand Americans in various branches of the U.S. military rotated in and out of Afghanistan, some multiple times. For two decades, top generals repeatedly reported that progress was being made. This week, they acknowledged that it had not. “You wish you’d seen that kind of candor during the war,” Christine Fair, a professor of security studies at Georgetown University, told me. “Why were you wrong about ninety-nine things if you’re honest about the hundredth?” McKenzie acknowledged that U.S. military leaders may not have listened to warnings from more junior U.S. service members working day to day with Afghan forces. “I think that’s a reasonable criticism,” he testified. “I’ll be very candid with you.”

The most alarming conclusions from the hearings were about the future of the jihadist threat broadly and Al Qaeda specifically. On the twentieth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Milley acknowledged, jihadism got a “shot of adrenaline” from the U.S. withdrawal and the Taliban’s return to power. American credibility was badly damaged. “It’s a big morale boost,” he said. The prospect of a future attack is “a very real possibility.” One of the seven conditions that the Taliban never met, as part of its deal with the Trump Administration, was to renounce Al Qaeda. Under the Taliban, Al Qaeda may be able to reconstitute in as little as six to twelve months and then, again, threaten the U.S. homeland, the Pentagon officials warned. Without U.S. troops on the ground or in neighboring countries, it will now be far harder to track Al Qaeda, isis-Khorasan, or other extremist cells in Afghanistan.

The most unnerving aspect of the two-day hearing, though, was the rank partisan politicizing of a war waged by two Republican and two Democratic Presidents with the goal, in theory, of safeguarding all Americans. Republicans on both the Senate and House committees called on Milley, who was stoic and stone-faced throughout, to resign. “This country doesn’t want generals figuring out what orders we are going to accept and do or not,” Milley shot back at the Republican Senator Tom Cotton, of Arkansas. The Republican tirades were often ill-informed and politically self-serving. In the House, Representative Liz Cheney, of Wyoming, called the criticism of the military by opportunistic fellow-Republicans “despicable.”

The testimony appeared to signify that the long de-facto alignment between Republicans and the U.S. military is over, Biddle told me: “The Republican Party is turning on them. That’s a tectonic shift.” As the U.S. looks ahead, the threats to national security and democracy will be the rise of hyper-partisanship and the erosion of public trust in government institutions, a trend exacerbated during the Trump Presidency. “The military may be the next institution that gets the rug pulled out from under them,” Biddle said. The Pentagon leaders’ testimony this week—which at times bordered on being a confessional—was striking, but may not be enough, Michael O’Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution, told me. “At some level, it’s inspiring, but anyone who is fair-minded would have to say the ending was catastrophic,” he said. “We’re all still in a state of shock about what happened.” Defeat is defeat. And the judgments and relentless pursuit of political advantage are only beginning.

0 notes

patriotsnet · 4 years ago

Text

Who Is Winning Democrats Or Republicans

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/who-is-winning-democrats-or-republicans/

Who Is Winning Democrats Or Republicans

Democrats Lose Senate Seat In Alabama

Spending bill: A win for Democrats or the GOP?

Democratic Senator Doug Jones has lost his race in Alabama, CBS News projects. Jones’ loss is expected, but it means the Democrats need another seat to take back control of the Senate. Democrats have picked up one seat so far, in Colorado.;

Many consider Jones’ tenure as a senator from ruby-red Alabama to be a fluke. He won the seat in a 2017 special election to fill the vacancy left by Jeff Sessions, who became Mr. Trump’s first attorney general. Jones narrowly defeated Republican candidate Roy Moore, who faced multiple allegations of sexual misconduct with underage girls. This year, Jones was less fortunate with his opponent. He was defeated by Tommy Tuberville, the well-known, beloved former coach of the Auburn University football team.;

Meanwhile, CBS News projects Republican Senator John Cornyn won his reelection race in Texas, defeating Democrat MJ Hegar.

Quiz: Let Us Predict Whether Youre A Democrat Or A Republican

Tell us a few details about you and well guess which political party you belong to. It shouldnt be that simple, right? Were all complex people with a multiplicity of identities and values. But the reality is that in America today, how you answer a handful of questions is very likely to determine how you vote.

This quiz, based on recent surveys with more than 140,000 responses, presents a series of yes-or-no questions to predict whether someone is more likely to identify as a Democrat or a Republican. It captures divisions that should make you worried about the future of American democracy.

We wont collect your answers.

The first question is the most important: Its about race. Asking whether someone is black, Hispanic or Asian cleaves the electorate into two groups. Those who answer yes lean Democratic; the others are split roughly evenly between the parties. Among those who are not black, Hispanic or Asian , the second most important question is whether the person considers religion important. If they answer yes, they are probably Republican.

Its not just race and religion, though. Party allegiances are now also tied to education, gender and age. Americans have sorted themselves more completely and rigidly than any time in recent history.

How demographics predict party affiliation

The group most likely to be Democrats are black women older than about 30.

Meeting in the Middle

Reliable Republicans

Cal Cunningham Concedes North Carolina Senate Race

Democrat Cal Cunningham conceded in the;North Carolina;Senate race on Tuesday, saying in a statement that he had called Republican incumbent Senator Thom Tillis to congratulate him on his victory.

“I just called Senator Tillis to congratulate him on winning re-election;to a second term in the U.S. Senate and wished him and his family the best in their continued service in the months and years ahead,” Cunningham said. “The voters have spoken and I respect their decision.”

CBS News projects that Tillis has won the race, after Cunningham’s concession. Tillis led Cunningham by nearly 100,000 votes as of Tuesday. The presidential race in North Carolina is still too close to call, although President Trump is currently in the lead. The full results of the election in North Carolina are unlikely to be known until later this week, as the deadline in the state to receive absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day is November 12.

Read Also: Did Trump Say That Republicans Are The Dumbest Group Of Voters

Joe Biden The Current Vp

Biden, for the most part, has been content to let his boss hog the limelight. He has made his fair share of effort staying under the public spotlight. His approval ratings have waned in public as well as in Democrat circles as well, owing to his diminished role in the Vice President role.

Compared to the invisible Dick Cheney, Joe Bidens mark on US politics is muted.

Reality Check 1: Biden Cant Be Fdr

Theres no question that Biden is swinging for the fences. Beyond the emerging bipartisan infrastructure bill, he has proposed a far-reaching series of programs that would collectively move the United States several steps closer to the kind of social democracy prevalent in most industrialized nations: free community college, big support for childcare and homebound seniors, a sharp increase in Medicaid, more people eligible for Medicare, a reinvigorated labor movement. It is why 100 days into the administration, NPR was asking a commonly heard question: Can Biden Join FDR and LBJ In The Democratic Party’s Pantheon?

But the FDR and LBJ examples show conclusively why visions of a transformational Biden agenda are so hard to turn into reality. In 1933, FDR had won a huge popular and electoral landslide, after which he had a three-to-one Democratic majority in the House and a 59-vote majority in the Senate. Similarly, LBJ in 1964 had won a massive popular and electoral vote landslide, along with a Senate with 69 Democrats and a House with 295. Last November, on the other hand, only 42,000 votes in three key states kept Trump from winning re-election. Democrats losses in the House whittled their margin down to mid-single digits. The Senate is 50-50.

You May Like: How Many Seats Do Republicans Hold In The Senate

Pelosi Says American People Have Made Their Choice Clear In Voting For Biden

;In a letter to her Democratic colleagues in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed confidence that Biden would be elected president, even though several states have yet to be called.

“The American people have made their choice clear at the ballot box, and are sending Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to the White House,” Pelosi said.

She also praised House Democrats for keeping their majority, saying that the House will “now have the opportunity to deliver extraordinary progress.” However, she only obliquely referenced the heavy losses by several freshmen Democrats who had flipped red seats.

“Though it was a challenging election, all of our candidates both Frontline and Red to Blue made us proud,” Pelosi said.

Georgia Election Official Says Ossoff Is On Pace To Win Avoid Runoff

A top Georgia election official said Democrat Jon Ossoff, who leads Republican;David Perdue, is on pace to win by a great enough margin to avoid a recount as the state looks to finish counting most outstanding absentee ballots by 1 p.m. EST Wednesday.

Gabriel Sterling, Georgias voting system implementation manager, said more than 60,470 absentee ballots remain uncounted, mostly in Democratic-leaning counties in the metro Atlanta area.

It makes it look like Jon Ossoff will likely have a margin outside of the half a percent to avoid a recount, Sterling said. And obviously, Rev.;Warnock is ahead of him right now. So, if Ossoff avoids that recount so does Rev. Warnock.

Under Georgia law, a recount can be requseted by a campaign;when an election is decided by less than 0.5 percentage points.

Ossoff leads;Perdue by 17,567 votes in a race the Associated Press says is still too early to call. Ossoff’s current lead is 0.4 percentage points. Raphael Warnock, who leads Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler by more than 54,729 votes, is the projected winner in his race. He leads Loeffler by 1.24 percentage points.

Sterling said the Georgia secretary of states office requested all counties get their ballots tallied by 1 p.m., and he believes most will be able to do so. The bulk of uncounted absentee ballots are those that arrived on Election Day, he said.

;Joey Garrison

Read Also: Why Are No Other Republicans Running For President

Iowa And Montana Senate Races Toss

With polls closing at 10 p.m. ET, CBS News estimates the closely-watched Iowa and Montana Senate races are both toss-ups. If the Democratic candidates defeated the Republican incumbents, it would bring Democrats closer to gaining the majority in the Senate.

In Iowa, Republican Senator Joni Ernst is being challenged by Democrat Theresa Greenfield in an unexpectedly close race. Mr. Trump won Iowa by 10 percentage points in 2016, raising concerns among Republicans about the tightness of a race Ernst was initially expected to win. Greenfield has raised far more than Ernst $28.7 million in the third quarter and she could end up outspending Ernst by more than $25 million by Election Day. ;

In Montana, first-term Republican Senator Steve Daines faces a challenge from the two-term governor of his state, Steve Bullock. Like Hickenlooper, Bullock briefly ran for president before ending his bid and entering the Senate race in March 2020. Bullock won reelection in Montana as a Democrat in 2016 even as Donald Trump won the state by about 20 points.

Meanwhile, the South Carolina Senate race has gone from a “toss-up” to “likely Republican.”

Jon Ossoff Wins In Georgia Ensuring Democrats Will Control The Senate

Winning U.S. Senate an essential piece of presidential election

Democrats took control of the Senate on Wednesday with a pair of historic victories in Georgias runoff elections, assuring slim majorities in both chambers of Congress for President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. and delivering an emphatic, final rebuke to President Trump in his last days in office.

The Rev. Raphael Warnock defeated Senator Kelly Loeffler, becoming the first Black Democrat elected to the Senate from the South. And Jon Ossoff, the 33-year-old head of a video production company who has never held public office, defeated David Perdue, who recently completed his first full term as senator.

Both Democrats now lead their defeated Republican opponents by margins that are larger than the threshold required to trigger a recount under Georgia law.

The Democrats twin victories will reshape the balance of power in Washington. Though they will have the thinnest of advantages in the House and Senate, where Vice President-elect Kamala Harris will break 50-50 ties, Democrats will control the committees and the legislation and nominations brought to the floor. That advantage will pave the way for at least some elements of Mr. Bidens agenda.

The political fallout of Mr. Trumps tenure is now clear: His single term in the White House will conclude with Republicans having lost the presidency, the House and the Senate on his watch.

Read Also: Which 12 Republicans Voted Against Trump

Georgia Senate Runoffs: The Final Battles For Control Of The Us Senate

The results of Georgias January 5 Senate races will help define Bidens presidency.

On January 5, control of the US Senate will be decided in two Georgia runoff elections. If Democrats win both races, both parties will have 50 senators each, with Vice President-elect Kamala Harris serving as the tie-breaker in any party-line votes.

If just one of the two Republican incumbents can hold onto their seats, however, the GOP will keep control of the Senate.

In the first race, Republican Sen. David Perdue is facing off against Jon Ossoff, perhapsbest known for his failed attempt to flip Georgias Sixth Congressional District in 2017 . In the second race, Rev. Raphael Warnock is challenging Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler. Warnock is the senior pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church, renowned as the place where Martin Luther King Jr. preached in the 1960s.

Its difficult to predict how runoffs and special elections will go. But though Republicans are favored, the races could be tight, as Voxs Ella Nilsen reported:

ButPerdue and Loeffler have struggled to clearly articulate the stakes of losing the Senate to Georgians as President Donald Trump has continued to falsely insist that he won the presidential race. Its hard to tell your supporters that youre the only thing standing between them and radical socialism if you cant admit that Trump lost.

Follow along below for Voxs election coverage, including breaking news updates, analysis, explainers, and more.

Georgia’s First Black Senator

A pastor who spent the past 15 years leading the Atlanta church where Martin Luther King Jr. preached, Raphael Warnock, defeated Republican incumbent Kelly Loeffler, US media predicted.

With the win, Warnock has become the first Black senator in his state’s history.

He acknowledged his improbable victory in a message to supporters early Wednesday, citing his family’s experience with poverty.

“The other day, because this is America, the 82-year-old hands that used to pick somebody else’s cotton picked her youngest son to be a United States senator,” he said, referring to his mother.

“Tonight, we proved with hope, hard work and the people by our side, anything is possible.”

Loeffler refused to concede in a brief message to supporters shortly after midnight.

“We’ve got some work to do here. This is a game of inches. We’re going to win this election,” the 50-year-old former businesswoman insisted, despite having no path to victory.

Also Check: How Many Registered Republicans Are In The United States

Poking That Dog With A Stick

This is not a situation open to easy reform; nor would all want to reform it. Parties try to become strong, and remain strong, for perfectly understandable political reasons. Strong parties can be a boon, though the balance of benefit to risk is better in a system designed with them in mind. And American society is divided in ways it was not before; its partisan politics are in part a cause of thatbut in part, too, a consequence of it.

An electoral system that has its thumb on the scales, though, is harder to defend. And measures to redress that electoral bias through greater proportionality in the voting system might also help with the broader issues of political division. Systems with elements of proportional representation, such as that sought by reformers of the electoral college or House districts, not only provide bulwarks against charges of illegitimacy. They also have a tendency towards consensus of the sort the founders wanted. There is a reason why, when choosing their own constitutions, no other country has for long survived with a replica of the American modeland why when guiding the design of constitutions for others, as they did in post-war Germany and Japan, Americans have always suggested solutions quite unlike the one under which they live.

Dig deeper

Which Party Is The Party Of The 1 Percent

First, both parties receive substantial support. Much of it comes from registered voters who make $100K+ annually. However, Democrats actually come out ahead when it comes to fundraising for campaigns. In many cases, Democrats have been able to raise twice as much in private political contributions. But what about outside of politicians? Does that mean Democrats are the wealthier party? Which American families are wealthier? Republicans or Democrats?

Honestly, it is probably Republicans. When it comes down to it, the richest families in America tend to donate to Republican candidates. Forbes reported out of the 50 richest families in the United States, 28 donate to Republican candidates. Another seven donate to Democrats. Additionally, 15 of the richest families in the U.S. donate to both parties.

Also Check: Can Republicans Vote In California Democratic Primary

Black Voters And Faith Leaders Rejoice At Warnocks Historic Win: I Think It Speaks Volumes

ATLANTA Michael Simmons, 63, has not missed voting in a major election since 1976. The most important for him was 2008, when he cast a ballot for President Barack Obama. But his votes in Novembers general election and the Senate runoffs on Tuesday were ranked closely behind.

The Rev. Raphael Warnocks success in the Senate runoffs sent a jolt of jubilation through much of Georgias African-American community, as they saw a Black man taking an office that had been held by segregationists when he was born. There was also a level of pride in having an emissary of the Black church serve in the highest levels of government.

I never would have thunk put that down, thunk! Id see this happen, said Mr. Simmons, a manager at a nonprofit organization in downtown Atlanta. Personally, I dont expect the world to change because we have a Black man in the Senate, but we can see progress.

The office of the nonprofit where Mr. Simmons works is just a few blocks from Ebenezer Baptist Church, the renowned congregation that Mr. Warnock leads. Mr. Simmons often saw Mr. Warnock walking around the neighborhood.

The win carried enormous significance for him: This was a place where for many years we got the short end of the stick, Mr. Simmons, who grew up in Alabama and moved to Atlanta after college, said.

Is Virginia A Democratic Or Republican State

4.3/5VirginiaRepublicanstateRepublicanVirginiastateDemocratic

Of the state’s eleven seats in the House of Representatives, Democrats hold seven and Republicans hold four. The state is widely considered blue-leaning, a trend which moves parallel with the growth of the Washington D.C. and Richmond suburbs.

Furthermore, is Virginia a swing state? Election analytics website FiveThirtyEight identifies the states of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin as “perennial” swing states that have regularly seen close contests over the last few presidential campaigns.

Besides, what political party is Virginia?

Virginia recognizes only two political parties: Democrats and Republicans.

Was Virginia always a democratic state?

Since the 2012 Virginia elections, Virginia has always voted for the Democratic statewide candidate. Since the 1851 Virginia gubernational election, the first gubernatorial election in Virginia in which the governor was elected by direct popular vote, 34 Virginia Governors have been Democrats.

Don’t Miss: Are Republicans More Racist Than Democrats

Key Races That Could Determine The Senate Majority

To take the majority, Democrats would have to net three seats, should Biden win the presidency, or four seats, if Mr. Trump wins reelection, because it’s the vice president who breaks ties in the Senate. The current balance of the Republican-controlled Senate is 53 to 47.

Here is a rundown of the key Senate races in this year’s election:

Doug Collins Concedes To Kelly Loeffler In Georgia Senate Race

Who is Winning US Election 2020 | Full 360 Analysis | Analysts, Democrats, Republicans on NewsX

Republican Congressman Doug Collins has conceded to Senator Kelly Loeffler, who has advanced to a runoff election in the Georgia Senate race along with Democrat Raphael Warnock. The runoff election will be held in early January.

I just called and congratulated her on making the runoff. She has my support and endorsement. I look forward to all Republicans coming together. Raphael Warnock would be a disaster for Georgia and America.

Doug Collins

Read Also: Will Any Republicans Vote For Impeachment

0 notes

orbemnews · 4 years ago

Link

Analysis: Janet Yellen says critics of Biden's tax hikes are asking the wrong question They want some proposals, like the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, to harm particular economic activities. They accept that higher corporate taxes will reduce the profitability of business investments, and may even preclude the most marginally profitable ones. What Biden’s brain trust wanted to ensure is that the negative effects of tax hikes on business and the wealthy don’t offset the economic benefits of what they finance: new spending on education and infrastructure and big tax benefits for less-affluent families. Backed by some independent analysts, they believe they’ve succeeded. “The greatest threat to our economic recovery — and our long-term economic prospects — is not a marginally higher tax rate for large corporations or the top 1% of taxpayers,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told CNN via email. “It’s a lack of support for America’s workers and families.” “Asking ‘will these tax increases hurt the economy?’ is not the right question,” Yellen said. “The right question is: ‘Is trading higher taxes on high-income taxpayers for middle-class tax cuts and major economic investments pro-growth?’ And the answer to that question is a resounding yes.” Biden must sell that case to a majority of lawmakers to move his plan through Congress. Though polls show Americans back higher taxes on business and the wealthy, Republicans and business leaders have taken aim in hopes of stopping them. “The biggest job-killing tax hikes in a generation,” declared Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina in his Republican response to Biden’s speech to lawmakers last week. In a Business Roundtable survey of CEOs, 98% said Biden’s tax hikes would make their companies less competitive, 75% said it would curb investment in research and development, and 71% said it would impede hiring. ‘I would not say it is a job-killing disaster’ Those attacks sound familiar because they echo jibes against tax hikes enacted by the last two Democratic presidents. As it happened, Bill Clinton oversaw an economic boom and Barack Obama the longest streak of private sector job growth in American history. Economic modeling, including from conservative analysts, casts doubt on dire Republican warnings again this time. The right-leaning Tax Foundation forecast last year that Biden campaign tax proposals, which were larger than he has proposed so far, would reduce the size of the economy by 1.62% in 2050. Republican economist Doug Holtz-Eakin, after accounting for benefits from the spending plans the tax hikes would finance, estimated that Biden’s plan would reduce the long-run size of the economy by just .2%. The conservative American Enterprise Institute found a scant .16% long-run decline from Biden’s tax hikes alone. “I would not say it is a job-killing disaster,” said AEI’s Kyle Pomerleau. Echoing his 2020 campaign plan, the President has proposed a raft of tax hikes that include raising the top corporate rate to 28% from 21%, raising the top personal rate to 39.6% from 37%, and raising the levy on capital gains to 43.4% for those with incomes above $1 million. He pledges to spare anyone earning under $400,000 from higher taxes. Applying a ‘pressure test’ Since Biden took office, his economic advisers say they’ve worked with career staff at the Treasury Department and analysts borrowed from the Federal Reserve to “pressure test” his proposals. One key goal is making sure different pieces fit together. For example, when they set out to close a loophole shielding profits from certain real estate transactions, Treasury officials worried about hitting business partnerships that might include under-$400,000 earners. To avert that, they exempted transactions with profits under $500,000. To prevent some companies from exploiting so many deductions that they pay no federal tax at all, candidate Biden proposed a 15% minimum tax on companies with “book income” exceeding $100 million as reported to investors. After calculating that loopholes closed elsewhere in Biden’s plan would cover all but a few companies, they raised the “book income” threshold to $2 billion. Biden proposed a potent revenue-raising combination targeting wealthy heirs: higher capital gains rates, and a new requirement that those rates be levied on the appreciation of inherited assets even if those assets have not been sold. But to avoid the appearance of overkill, they set aside another campaign proposal to slash the $11.7 million threshold below which estates are exempt from what Republicans call the “death tax.” Treasury economists say they found no red flags from their analysis of effects of tax hikes on different industry sectors or representative examples of companies and individual taxpayers. They continue to conduct macro-economic modeling. Biden aides declined to share any specific results so far. But Treasury models resemble those used by the Tax Policy Center, which employs multiple former government economists. A TPC analysis in November found that Biden’s campaign tax plan, by somewhat discouraging labor supply and investment, would reduce the size of the economy by .7% in 2023. The reduction would narrow to .3% by 2030 and disappear by 2040. “There’s a whole lot of uncertainty in this stuff,” conceded TPC’s Eric Toder, a former Clinton administration Treasury official. The TPC analysis did not attempt to measure the effects of Biden’s spending plans. The University of Pennsylvania’s Penn-Wharton Budget Model did, finding that Biden’s agenda overall would slightly reduce the size of the economy by 2030, then slightly increase it by 2050. Similarly, Moody’s economist Mark Zandi sees a “marginal” short-term drag from Biden’s tax hikes. But he says that would quickly turn around as infrastructure spending accelerates and adds 2.5 million new jobs in 2024-25. Biden will rely on Yellen’s credibility — she drew 84 Senate votes for confirmation to lead the Treasury after a widely-praised tenure as Federal Reserve chair — in countering attacks on his tax agenda. Her core argument: the tax hikes and spending plans can only be accurately weighed in combination. “Since the Reagan years, we’ve been enduring a particularly potent economic ideology in this country — one that says tax cuts, as a rule, promote growth while government investment, as a rule, is wasteful,” she wrote via email. “This ideology has never made much sense given what we know about the payoffs from government investments in people, infrastructure and R&D.” Yellen concluded: “Right now we’re living at a moment of imbalance between what our government takes in as revenue and what it needs to invest. The President’s proposals correct that imbalance and make sure America can compete based on the skill of our workforce and the strength of our infrastructure instead of a race to the bottom on tax rates.” Source link Orbem News #Analysis #Bidens #Critics #hikes #Janet #JanetYellensayscriticsofBiden'staxhikesareaskingthewrongquestion-CNNPolitics #Politics #question #Tax #WRONG #Yellen

0 notes