Nutjobs Continue to Rule GOP

[trish]

The U.S. failed to ratify the UN Disabilities Act (based on the American Disabilities Act signed by Bush the father in 1990). Conservative home schoolers (you know, the crazies who withdraw their children from real schools that teach science and civics) are deathly afraid the UN treaty would require them to make their homes wheelchair accessible! They also fear black helicopters and UN erosion of American sovereignty. As a result of a massive call-in campaign by home schoolers, and the predispositions of their numbskull representatives, the treaty failed to get the required votes to be be ratified by the U.S.

Just how backward can the GOP get??? We'll have to wait and see.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/from-republicans-a-parting-slap-at-bob-dole-and-disabled-americans/?ref=opinion

http://thehill.com/video/senate/271219-sen-kerry-objections-to-un-treaty-were-an-amazing-slap-in-the-face

[Ben]

Noam Chomsky, from 2011, on the state of American politics. Particularly the outlandish nature of the Republican Party.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtRTcBLXhAM

[Ben]

Covert Operations

The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama.

by Jane Mayer (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/bios/jane_mayer/search?contributorName=jane%20mayer) August 30, 2010

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

[Prospero]

I posted that story more than a year ago here. The poisonous influence of the Koch brothers on US politics is a long and well established fact.

[robertlouis]

I posted that story more than a year ago here. The poisonous influence of the Koch brothers on US politics is a long and well established fact.

Fair enough. But are the Koch brothers "nutjobs" or, more likely, a sinister force using their money and influence to get the credulous and hopeless on the right of American politics to swamp reason in the GoP through the medium of the Tea Party? If so, the evidence of last month suggests that they need to find a new way of using their money if they want to succeed.

[Ben]

Sheldon Adelson: ‘I’m Basically a Social Liberal’

By Alicia Mundy


http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-VO464_adelso_G_20121204222640.jpgIsaac Brekken for The Wall Street Journal

Sheldon Adelson (http://topics.wsj.com/person/A/sheldon,-adelson/587) with his wife, Miriam Adelson, at his office at the Venetian on Monday, Nov. 19, 2012 in Las Vegas.


In a three-hour interview with The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323717004578159570568104706.html), casino mogul Sheldon Adelson excoriated President Barack Obama (http://topics.wsj.com/person/O/barack,-obama/4328), Democrats and unions, as one would expect of a top donor to conservatives and Republican causes in the 2012 election.
But the billionaire, sitting with his wife Miriam, an Israel-born physician, shared political beliefs that may leave some surprised.
“Look, I’m basically a social liberal, I know nobody will believe that,” Mr. Adelson said, as Dr. Adelson nodded.
“Number one, I’m supporting stem-cell research,” he said, pointing to a chart of the new Adelson medical research foundation that is funding some stem-cell based science.
“I’m pro choice,” he said. Republicans are pro-life, but he and his wife are not pro-life in politics, he said.
“You can take your own religious beliefs …and live your life with your own beliefs. But to make it a portion of the government’s policies?” He shook his head.
“Abortion shouldn’t be brought up as a political issue,” he said.
Mr. Adelson continued on his list of liberal leanings.
On immigration: “I’m pro-Dream Act, I’m pro the Dream Act. My parents were immigrants to this country,” he said. “What are we going to do ? Listen, I’m sure a lot of my parents generation …..snuck onto the ship and they came into the country.
“So – people will do anything to leave massacres and to leave the economic conditions – they can’t put food on their own table.
“There has been in our history a lot of illegal immigration. Do I approve of it? No, but it’s here.
“It would be inhumane to send those people back , to send 12 million people out of this country to disrupt a whole potpourri of family issues” over what happens to the children.
“I mean it’s all ridiculous. So we’ve got to find a way, find a route for those people to get legal citizenship,” he said.
Finally, he said casually: “And by the way I’m in favor of a socialized-like health care.”
Asked he was sure he was in the right party, he and his wife laughed.
“Look, nobody agrees with 100 % of their planks” in the GOP platform, he and Dr. Adelson both said.
His interest in health care comes from his wife, and Israel’s national medical-care system, he said, as well as his Judaism.
“I think that to take care of everybody is part of Tikkun Olam” the Hebrew motto meaning “repair the world,” he said. “And to deprive somebody for money of heath care or [medical] testing is bordering on criminal.”
But he said, “I’m against this Obamacare because it’s making the [medical] decisions based upon money.” If one goes to Israel, he said, one chooses among four or five HMO’s. “You go in there you get all your health care from cradle to grave.”
“When I learned about that [Israeli] system, to my own surprise I said, ‘Oh, I’m in favor of socialized medicine’– which is such a bad word here,” he said.
Why does he favor it? “Because everybody pays” into the system, and the doctors don’t deny the elderly health treatments like hip surgery just because they are old, he said.
He added that he used to be a Democrat—like most Jewish Americans, he noted –until he attended the 1988 Democratic convention. He said he was appalled at the self-interested politicians he says were all over the place.
He then went to the 1992 Republican convention in Houston — where, he said, people were less concerned in what they were going to get from the presidential election, and more focused on helping the country.

[Ben]

Fair enough. But are the Koch brothers "nutjobs" or, more likely, a sinister force using their money and influence to get the credulous and hopeless on the right of American politics to swamp reason in the GoP through the medium of the Tea Party? If so, the evidence of last month suggests that they need to find a new way of using their money if they want to succeed.

The likes of David Koch -- and Charles -- are simply serving their own interests. I mean, David Koch, like Sheldon Adelson, is a social liberal. David Koch supports gay marriage.
I mean, Adelson and David Koch simply want policies like free trade etc, etc. to further their own interests and their financial wealth.
It's not some sort of, well, evil undertaking, as it were.
And, too, they enjoy the game, as it were, of corporate-state-capitalism.

David Koch breaks from GOP on gay marriage, taxes, defense cuts

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80483.html

[Prospero]

Pusuing business success is not, in itself, "an evil undertaking" but the dirty tricks of the Koch brothers, their funding of lunatic right wingers and their general tampering and distortion of political processes for their own ends - including the desire to block initiatives to control climate change, to attack any organisation by workers and to try to block any legislation which might inhibit the worst excesses of capitalism are surely enough to make them truly evil and a blight on the face of the US body politic.

[Prospero]

Interesting how many leading GOP folks or supporters are suddenly mutating from their core beliefs. Koch now supports gay marriage, the high priest of the evangelical movement Pat Robertson suddenly says he no longer accepts young earth creationism, Adelson describing himself as a social liberal and Fox News put new rules in place before Rove can appear on their channel.

[Ben]

Pusuing business success is not, in itself, "an evil undertaking" but the dirty tricks of the Koch brothers, their funding of lunatic right wingers and their general tampering and distortion of political processes for their own ends - including the desire to block initiatives to control climate change, to attack any organisation by workers and to try to block any legislation which might inhibit the worst excesses of capitalism are surely enough to make them truly evil and a blight on the face of the US body politic.

"... are surely enough to make them truly evil."

Is Capitalism Always Good for Democracy? - Robert Reich

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCMIgzSWkeU

[beandip]

oh, and leftist shitbags are not nuts?

Pull my finger.

[robertlouis]

oh, and leftist shitbags are not nuts?

Pull my finger.

Thank you for that carefully thought out contribution.

Meanwhile.....

[Prospero]

beadip - a thinker for our times

[thombergeron]

oh, and leftist shitbags are not nuts?

Pull my finger.

This is, perhaps, a bit off-topic, but the other day I was considering the "both sides equally bad" argument, and the Hastert Rule occurred to me.

For those who may be unfamiliar, Dennis Hastert was Speaker of the House from 1999-2007, until Republican lost the majority and Hastert was succeeded by Nancy Pelosi. In 2004, Hastert instituted a policy that became known as the Hastert Rule. As Speaker, Hastert would not allow any legislation to come to the House floor for a vote unless it could be assured a majority vote of the Republican majority, a majority of the majority. Boehner maintains the Hastert Rule.

In other words, the Republican-controlled House will not allow a vote on any legislation that cannot be passed exclusively with Republican votes. So if Majority Whip McCarthy can only come up with 217 Republican votes on a bill, even if a single Democratic House member agrees to vote yes to put the bill over the top, the Speaker will not allow that bill to come up for a vote. It has to be 218 Republican votes, or none. If Minority Whip Hoyer miraculously pulls together the entire Democratic caucus, all 201 members, plus 17 Republican moderates, that bill, with support of a numerical majority of the House of Representatives, will not be brought to the floor by the Speaker. A vote will not be allowed.

No such policy exists on the Democratic side of the aisle.

So Beandip, would you say that the Hastert Rule encourages or discourages partisanship?

[trish]

Explains why Congress can't even pass a napkin, let alone a bill.

[Ben]

Explains why Congress can't even pass a napkin, let alone a bill.

We need a more Ukrainian-like parliamentary system -- :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0XZlxKuig

[Ben]

Kiev: Fighting in the parliament

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfFwdIO-ej8

[beandip]

Two party fraud. But hey, it's 2012 "we voted out the hate"


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha

Keep dreamin'

[beandip]

Pelosi "we have to pass it before we read it'?

Yup....Jenius with a J right there...LOL.

and...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg

must be the second coming of Einstein there....

[Ben]

How will the GOP Re-invent Itself for 2016? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbvsdCHqMmA)

[eccentricBlue]

Both sides of the isle are run fucking morons backed by deep pocket special interests. Stop trying to claim one side to be holier than thou.

[trish]

There's only one side that's against teaching evolution and climate science. Only one side that wants to force women to have transvaginal ultrasound probes if they seek an abortion, only one party that thinks some sort of Middle Eastern god defined marriage for everyone. Only one party that voted against extending aid to New Jersey when it was struck by one of the worst hurricanes in a decade. Just look at the clowns that ran in the presidential primary. You guys are NUTS!

[Prospero]

There's only one side that's against teaching evolution and climate science. Only one side that wants to force women to have transvaginal ultrasound probes if they seek an abortion, only one party that thinks some sort of Middle Eastern god defined marriage for everyone. Only one party that voted against extending aid to New Jersey when it was struck by one of the worst hurricanes in a decade. Just look at the clowns that ran in the presidential primary. You guys are NUTS!



Succinctly put... it could have been a much longer litany

[eccentricBlue]

Ok, so you just proved that your a left wing hack and any civil discussion will go haywire. I don't trust either side despite their intentions.

But if bowing down to a political party helps you sleep at night, so be it. Just don't expect that reciting talking points will make you sound intelligent.

[broncofan]

Except that eccentric is a GOP guy and isn't admitting it. I noticed the complaints about the mainstream media and race-baiting in the other thread. Then there were the complaints about the federal reserve needing to be audited. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it's a duck. You say both sides are problematic because it's the only way you can sound reasonable.

There are also some arguments that sound so preposterous on their face that you know where they're coming from. For instance, when someone says "race card" or "race-bait" instead of saying they don't think there's adequate evidence to support a charge of racism, it sounds intellectually lazy. But it's little phrases like this that sort of reveal political allegiances to anyone who pays attention. Not too many Democrats are going to hear the subject of race and racism discussed intelligently and say, "what, are you playing the race card?".

The argument about the federal reserve is also an argument we hear from certain segments of the GOP. They care a lot about fiscal responsibility when recommending program cuts. They don't care about fiscal responsibility when discussing military spending. They also care a lot about the budget when discussing social security but again nothing about the budget when discussing capital gains taxes, estate taxes, or marginal tax rates.

But maybe I'm wrong. If you're sort of a political hybrid, tell us which of your views are compatible with those of liberals.

[eccentricBlue]

When the FED is buying up bonds like there's a fire sale is going on while running QE with no end in sight thus reducing the purchasing power of the dollar, it doesn't matter what your political affiliation is because history & economic fundamentals easily tell you the upcoming results.

But to respond to you your point about race, I am tired of the racial divide in this nation. We focus too much about race and not enough about facts (and to what point those facts actually prove). None of us should be a victim due to the color of our skin.

Quite frankly, I don't roll with any liberal agenda wholeheartedly. Conversely, I'm not a flag waving, war mongering bible banger either. I may be to the right of you, and to the left of another. I believe in strong state government with limited federal oversight. I'm economically conservative, yet socially liberal. Pick me apart from this response but I assure you that you won't prove much of anything.

[broncofan]

Quite frankly, I don't roll with any liberal agenda wholeheartedly. Pick me apart from this response but I assure you that you won't prove much of anything.
I don't really know what you mean by agendas to be honest. You say you are socially liberal, but the word agenda is attached to imply that there's an underhanded attempt to do something subversive. When liberals don't want homosexuals to be treated like outcasts, this is called the gay agenda. Wanting to have a graduated tax rate is socialism. Thinking legislation should be passed to ensure women are paid the same as men for equal work is a liberal agenda. So is vigorously enforcing the civil rights act. I think the rhetoric I hear from Republicans about liberal agendas is a sort of watered down extension of McCarthyism.

We also hear this stuff about the mainstream media somehow distorting the news, as though the media is one giant monolith. This was the excuse we heard from Sarah Palin after she was sabotaged by Katie Couric who asked her a few softball questions expecting basic political literacy on her part. I really do wonder about some of the shit I hear from Republicans.

[eccentricBlue]

The problem with the media is many different media outlets are usually controlled by one person. We get less and less news and more and more propaganda. Investigative journalism is a thing of the past.

[broncofan]

We focus too much about race and not enough about facts (and to what point those facts actually prove).

I believe in strong state government with limited federal oversight.
Two people are convicted of murder. One is African-American, the other is Caucasian. The African-American has a statistically significantly greater chance of being executed. Mind you they are both murderers. This is a fact and imo should not be ignored as it indicates at the very least unconscious bias pervading our criminal justice system.

If you believe in strong state government, what did you think about DOMA? To me, the federal government should recognize marriages that are licensed within the respective powers of the states. I'm not trying to be mocking but this is a pretty gay agenda. It also jibes with considerations of federalism, at least with respect to section 3 of DOMA.

[broncofan]

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-race

Edit: I like this amnesty article better than the one I had posted.

[Ben]

Republican Loses Dream Of Banning Sodomy - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pgpn0FV1Fo)

[Ben]

It's the Republican base vs. the Republican Establishment.
So:

Louie Gohmert Calls John McCain Al-Qaeda Supporter for Being Honest:

Louie Gohmert Calls John McCain Al-Qaeda Supporter for Being Honest - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJvF326Rnnw)

[Ben in LA]

So much for minority outreach...

[Ben]

Cruz Father: Ted Cruz "Anointed" To "Bring the Spoils of War to the Priests"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNa5w9js48s#t=398

[Odelay]

Ted Cruz's father rivals Mel Gibson's daddy for the nuttiest pa in the land. Is there any other nutjob father that rivals these two? We should start a list.

[Ben]

Shockingly Honest Admission By Conservative Talk Show Host - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWXuXSwygYM)

[Ben]

One of the owners of the GOP, Sheldon Adelson, worth a paltry 34 billion, wants to nuke Iran.

Nuke Iran! says Major Republican Donor, Sheldon Adelson - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ds6HPPv_S8)

[Ben]

Not sure how much power Bush has in the GOP today but he must have some sway...

George W. Bush to Raise Money for Group That Converts Jews to Bring About Second Coming of Christ:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/george-w-bush-jews-for-jesus-messianic-jewish-bible-institute

[Ben]

I see both so-called political parties as essentially the Republican Party. Both serving the super-rich and the billionaire class.

Thom Hartmann explains Republican's 2 Santa strategy - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgT9-cRhHnw)

[Ben]

Speaking of (corrupt) nutjobs:

Mitch McConnell Is Kentucky Projected Winner - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzkROWxS3AQ)

[Ben]

America's Dumbest Congressman praises Egyptian dictator, still thinks Obama is a secret Muslim (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/14/1357776/-America-s-Dumbest-Congressman-praises-Egyptian-dictator-still-thinks-Obama-is-a-secret-Muslim)

[fred41]

Actually Ben, quite a few people praised Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi for what he said and did...I think some of those words deserved praise:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/06/africa/egypt-president-speech/

[Ben]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErFMVfK6x5s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErFMVfK6x5s)

[trish]

Did you hear the one where an Idaho, Republican lawmaker walks into a committee and asks, "Where do babies come from?"

"At a hearing to discuss a bill that would bar doctors from providing abortion-inducing drugs through telemedicine, a doctor explaining telemedicine noted that colonoscopy patients can swallow a small device to help doctors monitor the gastrointestinal tube. To which Barbieri responded (http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/293718211.html): "Can this same procedure then be done in a pregnancy? Swallowing a camera and helping the doctor determine what the situation is?"" http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2015/02/24/idaho-lawmaker-asks-about-swallowing-cameras-to-get-pregnancy-pictures

Apparently a girl can get pregnant if she swallows. Don't swallow ladies.

[Ben]

Bachmann: Jesus Coming Back Any Minute Now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ehJGXPxd7M

[martin48]

I'm listening to the Holy Spirit as well

[Ben]

Was Ben Carson a Mediocre Surgeon?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnJoEKoLOeA

[buttslinger]

In last night's FARGO episode, the cold blooded hitman "graduates" up the ladder in the syndicate, so they stick him in a little office with a window and a phone.
He sneers, then his new boss tells him that there is only ONE business anymore, the MONEY business.
He then advises him to get a haircut and get a new suit, and oh, learn how to play golf. That's where are the real deals are made.

Bush was an incredibly inept President, but if you see him as a businessman, he was incredibly successful!

This isn't going to surprise anyone, but politics is all about money, now more than ever.
Tonight's debate is just a bunch of guys who get off being rich and powerful.

[dreamon]

Was Ben Carson a Mediocre Surgeon?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnJoEKoLOeA

Regardless of what you think of his politics, Carson was a Director of Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins for close to 30 years. The hospital at Johns Hopkins is one of the best hospital in the entire world. This just reeks of butthurt. I am not a huge Carson fan, but trying to discount his amazing success in medicine is silly.

EDIT: The host of this show has apparently admitted to being a Democrat, despite presenting himself as an independent. Shocking.

[dreamon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-HCYgZo_og

[trish]

Because of that ridiculously laughable remark one might easily think Hank Johnson was another dim-bulb republican and hence belongs in this list of other Republican nutjobs. Not so. Hank's a Democrat.

[martin48]

So the Republicans don't have a monopoly on stupidity! But the Republicans do have history


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnAHsZFhRdo

[trish]

It will be interesting to see what Donald Trump's promise means if the delegates switch their vote after the first ballot. As much as I think Trump would be the worst possible president, he would have an argument to run as an independent if the GOP ignored the will of their constituents.

I don't know anything about the labyrinthine process Stavros outlined above (perhaps I should take a civics class...or perhaps parties should adopt a nomination process that is more straightforward and sensible).

I'm not sure what the point is of having an alternate contest at the convention, except to reconcile the difference between what Republican voters and Republican leaders want. Perhaps it was designed this way with people like Trump in mind, who might win the vote of party members but not move the party in a direction the leadership is comfortable with. But couldn't such a person always cannibalize votes as a third party candidate?

The above is actually from a the thread on what Brits think about Drumpf. I didn't want to turn it into a discussion between U.S. citizens.

If Trump wins on the first round but is dealt out of the nomination by a backroom deal at the GOP convention, I think he would be effectively released from his obligation not to run as an independent (regardless of what the GOP might say).

I also expect party leaders to maintain the integrity of their party and what it stands for and that probably is the why the nominating process is designed the way it is (but I'm just guessing and agreeing here).

I'm not sure Trump is the worst of all the GOP candidates. In fact, I think Cruz is. All of them are far from being moderate in any sense of the word. Gov. Kasich is lauded among pundits as a moderate, but he just killed all funding for Planned Parenthood in Ohio. He's a complete ideologue, as is Rubio (although Rubio flaps in the political winds). Trump is too ignorant to be an ideologue and too impulsive to be trusted with the Nation.

I'd love it Trump if was denied the nomination in a back-room maneuver and ran as a independent. It would hand the election to the Democratic Party. On the other hand, Bloomberg promised to enter the race as an independent if it was between Trump and Sanders. Even though Bloomberg is a Republican, I can't help think he would draw more votes from Dems and Independents, then from Republicans.

[Stavros]

If I was an American voter I would be looking at the field of candidates most likely to be nominated for the Presidency and wonder if there was a crisis in US politics, not just in the Republican Party. From what I can gather, Mrs Clinton will base her policy agenda on the 1990s, Sanders on the 1960s, and Trump on the 1930s. I am not sure about Cruz and Rubio who seem to base their world view on a mix of Bronze Age biblical texts and the late Roman Empire. I can't see any of these people being more than a one-term President, and it may be that the Republican 'establishment' has given up and decided that Trump will be their candidate and lead them to a crushing defeat in November, but that this will enable the party to re-define its identity and purpose and attract a strong and credible candidate to dominate the 2020s.

But where are the leading politicians who can offer a vision of the US in 10 or 20 years time, when it is estimated that over the next 30 years automation will replace up to 50% of the jobs currently being done by humans; when the global decline of population growth beginning around 2050 will thus see a a net and steep increase between now and then, not including immigration patterns. What are we to make of a country that cannot provide drinking water in the north, or water at all in the south? Crucially, where are the policies that will create jobs and grow the economy, and deal with these hugely complex issues?

You have a generation of politicians looking backwards, and it may be that the best minds in America have fled politics for the arts, the sciences, engineering and medicine, and that they will continue to innovate and grow while the political system atrophies in a stale Presidency and a rigid Congress. We have a similar range of problems in the UK, and on a wider scale in Europe, but the US has always been able to innovate its way out of a crisis and is still the country of the future, but you need politicians who believe in that future, and don't look back with nostalgia at some point in the past. The past is another country, they do things differently there.

Give us some hope, at least that!

[trish]

...you need politicians who believe in that future, and don't look back with nostalgia at some point in the past. The past is another country, they do things differently there. You paint a frightening picture of our political scene. I must admit, I've been asking myself lately, "Who have I been living with? Who are these people who are coming out of the woodwork to nominate Trump? Could they possibly be my friends and neighbors? How could I have not seen them for who they are?" Although the Democratic candidates are old, I don't agree they're living in the past. They both believe in anthropogenic climate change; none of the GOP candidates do. The Democratic candidates believe the CDC should be allowed to study the relationship between firearm distribution and the public health; the GOP candidates do not.

It is sad that there are very few young and sane politicians on the horizon. I might mention Cory Booker (he's already 46), but he's neither a nutjob nor republican and so an unsuitable subject for this thread.

[Stavros]

Trish, I may be setting the bar too high, but I think that in mature democracies we have a right to expect the best of the politicians we elect, not a self-satisfied clique who award themselves pay rises beyond rates they would allow for bus drivers or doctors, who fiddle their expenses, and make pompous moral judgements about marriage while paying for sex or conducting illicit affairs of their own.

It is frankly a weak argument to endorse either Clinton or Sanders for believing in 'anthropogenic climate change' when climate change has been on the agenda since the 19th century along with environmental politics in the USA such as the Sierra Club, founded in 1892; the National Audubon Society, founded in 1905; and the Wilderness Society in 1935. It is not as if these have been somnolent societies of sandal clad fishermen and twitchers, they were instrumental in delaying the development of the petroleum industry in Alaska for the best part of five years, and the creation of the Environmental Protection Act which in turn created the Environmental Protection Agency, acts of a Republican -yes, a Republican- President that these days would be condemned by the GOP as socialism gone mad -and you think American politicians are not looking backwards for solutions when they are also identifying the past as the source of current problems?

While issues related to climate change are impossible to ignore and feed into a variety of policy issues, from environmental protection to water management to energy in general, fundamental to the future is the 'world of work' because capitalism continues to innovate its way out of crises of production, distribution and supply, but does not necessarily have the USA in mind as it goes on its merry way into the future.
One example of just how stupid a politician can be -allowing for one brief moment his aspiration to be a politician- is Donald Trump's claim that if he becomes President Apple will have to make its products in the USA not in China, which presumably will also apply to all other US firms who make products outside the country. Trump may have no faith in free trade, and I don't suppose he would accept a compromise from Apple to move its production from China to Mexico or American Samoa, but what is so outstanding in this position is the man's utter ignorance, or studied indifference as to why Apple and other computing firms make their products in China. With millions of Americans fed up with stagnant wages and rising costs, is Trump going to propose reducing the minimum wage to $1 an hour? Does he see his tariff barrier policies so depreciating the value of the dollar that it won't be long before it is cheaper to make computers in Michigan than it is in China? The mind boggles, even before you send this economic nationalism through the cheesegrater called Congress, not to mention the way it conflicts with trade deals the USA has been signing all over the place.

As I indicated in the previous post, automation is going to decimate jobs over the next 30 years unless someone or a new industry comes along that needs human labour. The revolution in communications does not just make it easier for people around the world to be 'connected' and, in a democratic sense, give everyone a voice, it is also part of a growing surveillance culture in government and industry that is leading governments, such as the UK, to introduce laws that would give the police the right to trawl though my email and browsing history in case I am a terrorist or a drug baron or maybe just don't like the Conservative Party and am not afraid to say so. Commerce now has facial recognition software in stores so that if someone is a regular in Saks they know which items in the store he or she tends to look at and buy, or steal if they are shoplifters -as in time the software will set off an alarm and a security guard will escort them outside; or prompt a sales assistant so sidle up and purr into your ear about a new range of underwear on special offer.

These examples might sound trivial, but I think the point is that capitalism seems to move so fast politicians are always playing catch-up, they are behind the curve not shaping it. The end result is that we have in Europe and North America lost a lot of the industries that used to employ millions of people, often low to unskilled workers; people in work have seen their wages rot while costs rise, with endless anxieties and arguments about health care, housing and education. In response you have the pathetic whining of Sanders and his designated enemy -the 'Bankers'- as if he had no idea where the money for old age pensions comes from, while Mrs Clinton doesn't seem to have a single answer to the question of jobs other than creating more and more federal funded jobs by expanding the remit of federal agencies -is this 'welfare to work' or 'work as welfare'? and raising the minimum wage which as many employers as possible will avoid paying anyway.

Maybe the Federal government, as with the Civilian Conservation Corps of the 1930s, should permanently employ 25 million Americans to repair the physical infrastructure?

Or it could just be my age and that a younger generation sees the future containing greater potential than I can see. But are the candidates before you the ones to take you into a future that is not just different from, but better than the present?

[broncofan]

Environmentalism may not be a new movement, but when it comes to whether anthropogenic climate change is occurring, there is a major partisan division. The GOP for the most part believes it is not a real phenomenon and that scientists are deviously plotting to slow production by faking meteorological data.

I think the argument that both parties are nostalgic is almost tautological. There is no platform under the sun that is not in some way derivative (the same issues arise over and over again until they are resolved and the solutions are finite). Sometimes previous generations get certain things right; I don't think it's less progressive to acknowledge that.

What separates a progressive from a traditionalist is that the latter believes the previous iteration was right simply because that's the way it's always been done. The progressive may support a previous proposal because it serves some value that is not currently being given enough emphasis and that no practice should remain in place simply because we don't have the determination to improve it.

What I like about Sanders is that he's willing to look at what other countries do and say, "we can use a little more of that". I don't like that he tends to be one-dimensional and has set himself up as the anti-establishment guy. This would end up being a role that would pigeonhole him. He would have to continuously re-establish his credentials or be accused of hypocrisy.

Sometimes you are more motivated by fear of bad proposals than hope. A Republican President would result in a very different supreme court (depending upon whether any liberal justice dies or retires; one spot is already vacant and awaiting replacement) and resulting changes in the legality of same sex marriage, abortion, and limitations on corporate campaign contributions, etc. It may also result in the repeal of our healthcare system which is a major part of Obama's legacy. This is motive enough for me to say that someone who is reasonable is good enough...not inspiring, but there you go.

[broncofan]

Actually there's quite a bit more I don't like about Bernie Sanders than I stated but that's not the purpose of the thread I suppose. As long as the viable options result in two very different outcomes, I don't feel that bad about being motivated by fear of the nutjob...it's not ideal, but ideal would be that nobody would want to ban same sex marriage, would reject a well-founded scientific consensus, or think it's okay for people to go without health insurance.

[broncofan]

In response you have the pathetic whining of Sanders and his designated enemy -the 'Bankers'-

Strongly agree. For anyone who knows anything about finance, Sanders condemnation of bankers and Wall Street is without any nuance...seemingly without any comprehension of the trade-offs legislators must consider in enacting financial regulations...and also what is required to prosecute someone for violating banking laws (a violation of a current law rather than an aspiration). I don't doubt that many more crooks could have been prosecuted post 2008 but if you were to listen to Sanders you would not really know who should be prosecuted and for violating which specific law.

[Stavros]

Environmentalism may not be a new movement, but when it comes to whether anthropogenic climate change is occurring, there is a major partisan division. The GOP for the most part believes it is not a real phenomenon and that scientists are deviously plotting to slow production by faking meteorological data.

I think the argument that both parties are nostalgic is almost tautological. There is no platform under the sun that is not in some way derivative (the same issues arise over and over again until they are resolved and the solutions are finite). Sometimes previous generations get certain things right; I don't think it's less progressive to acknowledge that.

What separates a progressive from a traditionalist is that the latter believes the previous iteration was right simply because that's the way it's always been done. The progressive may support a previous proposal because it serves some value that is not currently being given enough emphasis and that no practice should remain in place simply because we don't have the determination to improve it.

What I like about Sanders is that he's willing to look at what other countries do and say, "we can use a little more of that". I don't like that he tends to be one-dimensional and has set himself up as the anti-establishment guy. This would end up being a role that would pigeonhole him. He would have to continuously re-establish his credentials or be accused of hypocrisy.

Sometimes you are more motivated by fear of bad proposals than hope. A Republican President would result in a very different supreme court (depending upon whether any liberal justice dies or retires; one spot is already vacant and awaiting replacement) and resulting changes in the legality of same sex marriage, abortion, and limitations on corporate campaign contributions, etc. It may also result in the repeal of our healthcare system which is a major part of Obama's legacy. This is motive enough for me to say that someone who is reasonable is good enough...not inspiring, but there you go.

I think you miss a critical point about nostalgia -the 'traditionalists' do not look back to the Reagan era and say 'why can't we be like that' because 'that's what America is', they resurrect the past as a replacement for a future they do not seem to comprehend -or to want.

If it is true I set the bar too high for politicians as people then maybe in a capitalist society there is a limit to what politicians can -even should- achieve, just as people probably think a President can do more in the US system than he (or she) can.

But here are some sobering realities at a time when I have not heard candidates in the Republican Party saying jobs in the public sector should be transferred to the private sector.

The largest private employer in the USA (2015 figures) is Wal-Mart, with 2,200,000 employees. The next largest is McDonalds, with 420,000, followed by IBM with 412,000.

In the 'knowledge economy' and social media, Microsoft employed 99,000 worldwide (2013); Apple employed 80,300 worldwide (2013), Google 24,000 worldwide (2010) and Facebook 12,691 worldwide (2015).

The Ford Motor Co in 2014 employed 187,000 worldwide in 2014 with 48% of its workforce in the USA having employed 213,000 worldwide in 2008. But in the 1940s Ford employed 90,000 at just one plant in the Detroit area -River Rouge- while between 1948 and 1967 Michigan saw the loss of 130,000 jobs in the auto industry.

In 2014 the Federal Government employed 2,711,000 excluding non-civilian military and this was the lowest since 1966, the highest numbers being recorded in the 1980s.
In 2014, local government employed 14 million, and while the trend was downwards, in the 1950s local government rarely exceeded 4 million.

What this suggests is that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans know what the future of work looks like, but it does seem that even with Ford hiring what it calls '5,000 hourly paid workers' in 2014, many jobs in industry are insecure, short-term, part-time, zero-hours or 'soft jobs' on the basis of which planning a family is very risky; or the new tech industries and social media can become global superstars but without employing vast numbers of people; and thus the largest source of jobs is either the Federal government, or state and country authorities. The money is all either in the hands of government, broadly defined, or corporate giants with access to global markets and billions of dollars of investment. Somewhere in the middle are small to medium firms overwhelmed with red tape, layers of tax and pressures on cost, but even if Trump promotes 'the little guy', what in reality can Trump do to give the 'little guy' a break, because there is not going to be an 'even break' with the way capitalism is at the moment. And no appeal to the 'small town America' of 1816 is going to work now, that nostalgia for the age of Jefferson and Adams is only going to work in Hollywood (or Netflix).

As for the Supreme Court, Obama must nominate Sri Srinivasan as soon as possible because the man has already been appointed without objection to his current post so for Republicans to deny him would look vindictive, but note too that nominees to the Supreme Court often vote on the law rather than by party line, and while Antonin Scalia might have been the exception (and Souter in the Roosevelt era), it has been mostly Republican nominees who drifted away from their party once they got on the bench.

Anyway, I still think there is a woeful lack of real depth to political debate in the USA and also here in the UK and more widely in Europe.

Lastly, is there any depth to the rumours that Marco Rubio is/was gay?

[broncofan]

Great post. I am not sure what the government can do about these economic trends. I think automation would not be implemented if it were not more efficient in a macro sense, but in the short run it does terrible things to the average worker. When you look at vast restructuring like this and how it shakes up lives, I think it is essentially a problem of distribution...how else could technology replace human labor unless it did more and for cheaper? But its fruits are enjoyed by whom?

Do you think it is possible for the knowledge economy to employ vast numbers relative to total population? Or is it by its nature something that will only depend on the few and the specially educated to shepherd?

I agree with you that whether a judge is conservative or liberal should not matter very much. If they are principled, it is their judicial philosophy that will determine the decisions they make on the bench.

When it comes to interpreting the meaning of statutes, I believe political affiliation does not matter. When it comes to interpreting the bare text of our constitution and how it circumscribes the behavior or legislators at both the state and federal level, political affiliation seems to permeate most decisions. What one sees as fundamental right that legislators cannot legislate away, what one sees as the limits of the federal government versus state governments seem to always depend upon one's meta-view of what kind of society we have been and should be. A Judge evaluating an issue like abortion has no external reference except for the weight he gives to the rights of a woman versus the harm done to the unborn fetus and the right of the court to limit the sovereignty of state legislatures in order to protect some value.

Although I disagreed with many of Scalia's opinions and found some of his reasoning repellent, he did ask one very relevant question. If the Supreme Court can strike down laws to protect values that are not enumerated in the Constitution, what is to prevent them from being legislators in robes? As much as I think the Court has a role to protect fundamental rights and the equal protection of citizens, he has a point...in most systems I imagine Judges have a self-contained body of law to reference and not open-ended values they see as their job to protect.

[broncofan]

Somewhere in the middle are small to medium firms overwhelmed with red tape, layers of tax and pressures on cost, but even if Trump promotes 'the little guy', what in reality can Trump do to give the 'little guy' a break, because there is not going to be an 'even break' with the way capitalism is at the moment.
I don't know the answer, but I suspect that small to medium firms face more pressure with cost and difficulty in efficiently reallocating their capital than red tape and layers of tax. Maybe the red tape they face is more burdensome for them only because they have not achieved the efficiency that comes with economies of scale.

Should the government provide incentives in the form of subsidies and tax breaks to maintain their viability or allow them to be crushed by corporations who benefit from economies of scale and efficient administration? Maybe the government should provide tax breaks and subsidies, but what is the next stage of their business development except to eventually become a behemoth...what is the tide we are fighting to ensure their viability?

It seems I am leading the questions against their protection, but only because the trends in favor of large entities seems strong and their advantages almost unavoidable. Distribution of wealth is important to me, but it can be achieved in other ways than bolstering failing businesses.

[Stavros]

One of the curious omissions in the debate from both sides relates to the timid attitude they have to anti-trust strategies. Even in the case of Bernie Sanders, he wants to break up the 'big financial institutions' but if the overall intention is to create a more level playing field and give 'the little guy' with a small business a better chance of growing his business, why does nobody call for anti trust legislation to break up corporate giants like Google, Microsoft, IBM, Apple, Exxon and so on? Should Rupert Murdoch be allowed to own so much of the US media? Not even the 'free market' champions of the GOP seem interested in this, and certainly not Donald Trump who claims he is on the side of 'the little guy' but doesn't seem to have a policy to match the rhetoric. Yet giant corporations are at the heart of debate on globalisation and its winners and losers, because they can employ people to deal with red tape and every regulation thrown at them, while also using brilliant tax lawyers to pay as little corporation tax as possible.

The odd position that this puts the US in, rather like the UK, is one in which we have gone from an era of full employment, high rates of direct taxation, national prosperity and low deficits, to varying levels of higher or lower than unemployment, low taxation, lower rates of growth and national prosperity, and colossal debt. One explanation for these are unexpected costs, such as the $trillion or more spent on foreign wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but another is the curious case of the way work has changed reducing productivity and with it the national wealth.

One of the consequences of the changes that has taken place along with de-industrialisation in the US and UK is that it is possible for Ford to hire 5,000 hourly paid workers, but not to add value at significant levels to the economy because part-time work or temporary contacts reduce productivity. This in turn means the government receives less revenue in the form of both taxes levied on workers and firms, and on their products, and has to make up the difference through borrowing, or savings on public spending, this position is put well here-

Creating jobs without improving productivity, however, will not result in sustainable employment that raises the nation’s standard of living. Rather than defining the sole goal as job creation, the U.S. must focus on becoming a more productive location, which will generate high-wage employment growth in America, attract foreign investment, and fuel sustainable growth in demand for local goods and services.
https://hbr.org/2012/03/the-looming-challenge-to-us-competitiveness

The next time Kasich or Christie or anyone else says they have created more jobs in their state in a month than Democrat states, treat with caution. As for Trump, he promises to reduce the top level of tax, take out lower paid workers from direct taxation altogether, but also find the money to 'bomb the shit' out of Daesh in Iraq and Syria and build a wall across the Mexican border -even Trump I assume is not going to demand the money 'up front' (but this wall will never get through Congress anyway so it is just flannel). Trump, the man with a plan and the man for a deal, can't do his sums.

In the UK the gradual decline of the North Sea Oil and Gas industry has also taken a lot of productive value, as well as taxes out of the country's income but there are less visible losses too, such as the decline of the money spent in the UK on Research and Development in new industries, also true of the USA as worldwide the leaders in R&D are Israel, Korea, Japan, Finland, Sweden -even Taiwan spends more of its GNP on R&D than the USA.

You will look in vain for a policy on R&D in any of the candidates policy announcements, just as you will not find any intelligent comments on productivity, but you will find positions on tax because that is an obsession with Republicans and a 'businessman' like Donald Trump.

The difficulty with the social media phenomenon, taking Facebook and Google into account, is that they are not like Apple or Microsoft, companies that actually make things. Facebook, which generates about $1bn profit every three months, in 2014 paid the UK government £4,327 in corporation tax -around $6,158 with corporation tax in the UK being 20%. One reason is that Facebook's European HQ is in Ireland where corporation tax is 12.5% and money made from sales in the UK is routed through Ireland. But the key problem is that with a firm like Facebook there is a difference between profit and revenue, because corporate taxes are levied on profit, not revenue, and a firm without a tangible product like a car or a computer generates more revenue than profit, if that doesn't sound too arcane. But this is also why new industries are either able to become financially successful because they pay such little tax, or because the governments have yet to work out how to tax a business whose 'product' is, in effect, a 'presence' on the internet. Again, an example of how contemporary politicians are using last century's standards of measurement to extract their slice of the cake from an industry they appear not to even understand, and in Sander's case, for 'moral' rather than for sound financial reasons.

At least Mrs Clinton is not obscuring the debate. She can be lumped in with Wall St and the global giants as the 'sell-out' (why not the 'buy-in'?) candidate who promises more of the same, while the others promise little to nothing that connects with the way business is done. The key point about Donald Trump, in the end, is that he is not and has never been interested in 'the deal', but 'the percentage'. He doesn't walk into a board room to negotiate a compromise, as he would have to do with Congress -betraying the 'little guy' in the process- he goes in thinking 'what's my percentage?' Or, 'what's in it for me?'. And that is no way to shape economic policy in the USA, or anywhere else.

Trump's website has these 'Positions' -
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

There is a checklist of candidates positions on a range of issues where they can be identified, here-
http://2016election.procon.org/view.source-summary-chart.php

[buttslinger]

Looks like fact is stranger than fiction and Trump will be IN next Tuesday, So be it Lord, in your infinite wisdom, you have checked and balanced all things so that Trump will not only lose the election, he'll destroy the GOP. They're losing spokespeople left and right. RIP
....As for Stavros' pile of corruption, back stabbing, theft, waste, moronic decisions, lost opportunities, hey man, that was one day at work for me. I used to embezzle as much money as I earned, and spend it on dancing girls, whores, alcohol, and drugs. The reason I could steal that much and get away with it was I did the books and I was also one of the best EARNERS we had. Some of my co-workers and one boss kinda knew, but there was such an entangled web of alliances, memories, fears, weaknesses, and strengths, I got away with it. In the USA, the WHEELER DEALER has an odd respect, lots of psychology in business.
As for all that bullshit piled up, I think it is worse than one can imagine, and possibly very dangerous. It's like physics, you have to look through your imagination to see it clearly. The USA can maintain that huge pile of shit simply because, we have the largest pile of MONEY the Planet has ever experienced. We have the most POWER the planet has ever witnessed.
Kennedy said we should do things not because they are easy but because they're hard. Jury is out. The aim is justice, but you end up with reality.

[buttslinger]

One of O'Bama's objectives is a roaring success: He did nothing WRONG enough to send peasants with pitchforks and torches flooding toward the White House. The Republican voters are hopping mad and their hatred is all directed at the GOP!!!!!!

KUDOS Barack Hussein O'Bama!

I give up predicting what Trump will do, but I am pretty confident that 51% of America will not vote for a Man whose main promise is to kick down the doors of 11 million homes and drag Mexican children down the street to waiting vans.
I'm voting for Kasich's daughter (the one on the right)

http://s14.postimg.org/gx06ou6ap/2385008_prezident_usa_kandidatura_kasich.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
forum image hosting (http://postimage.org/)

[trish]

A Possible Course of Events?
The latest spate of childish tweets and spats have left Trump slightly more damaged than Cruz. It’s possible that neither of them will have enough delegates to win the nomination on the first round of voting at the GOP convention. If that should happen it’s pretty clear Trump would not have gained enough of the party trust to secure the nomination. Yet it would be difficult to award the nomination to any of the candidates who faired worse in the primaries than Trump, including Cruz. I think (should no one have the required delegate count) that the GOP would someone outside the pool of this year’s seventeen or so candidates and clowns. I think it’s likely that after the white smoke settles, Paul Ryan could surface from the convention hall as the newly crowned GOP nominee.

[buttslinger]

A Possible Course of Events?

All roads lead to FAIL:!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eJpWOY3r18

[trish]

Thanks for the vid buttslinger; that was one-hundred and sixty very excruciating seconds for The Donald. But that's in the past:

It's springtime
For The Donald
In the USA;
Winter for Hispanics
And The Blacks.

(Don't be stupid, be a smarty come and join the border wall party)

[martin48]

Springtime for Hitler - time for a remake?

[martin48]

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-trump-says-abortion-ban-should-punish-women-w200856

If I perform an illegal abortion on Trump, would I be punished?

[buttslinger]

Before the ink was dry on Johnson's Civil Rights Act the Republicans had a vision:
They could now become the WHITE Party of the USA.
But non-whites are a bigger percentage of the population now.
So tossing any white guy in a suit on the ballot (Mitt) isn't cutting it anymore.

[fred41]

Trump's inclusion in the Republican primary probably reshuffled the deck. I believe Marco Rubio would still be standing if it wasn't for that...could be the morning coffee talking though. To really project, I would say that if Rubio had won, Nikki Haley would have received a powerful cabinet position from him (her term is up 2019)...which of course may have eventually lined her up for a future presidential nomination. The irony of course is - I don't think a Trump or Cruz nomination will beat Clinton anyway (though this is the strangest of election years , so you never know), which means she could have an earlier shot at it, if that's what she really wants. Obviously this is all, over the top, speculation on my part cause I'm wired right now. Governor Haley would be an attractive nominee for all the obvious reasons, but what sours it is the 'Tea Party'.

Which may be okay, because if she ever got the nomination, my eyes would be tired from rolling them anytime some idiot would say "Why doesn't she go by her first name Nimrata? hmmm...answer me that'.

On an amusing note, I have to give credit to Trump for one thing: The Tea Party kills nominees by forcing them to spew shit you know they don't believe in...often based on previous performance. But here you have Trump, who so obviously doesn't hold ANY of their values it's almost laughable. It's almost like he's forcing that wing of the party to him, rather than vice-versa. Which exposes that portion of the party for what they are - haters who think the world should just think like them - or go to hell if they don't. People in need of anger management and drugs (other than Crystal Meth).

[buttslinger]

......I have to give credit to Trump for one thing: The Tea Party kills nominees by forcing them to spew shit you know they don't believe in...often based on previous performance. But here you have Trump, who so obviously doesn't hold ANY of their values it's almost laughable. It's almost like he's forcing that wing of the party to him, rather than vice-versa. Which exposes that portion of the party for what they are - haters who think the world should just think like them - or go to hell if they don't.....

When Trump said "THEY'RE all rapists and drug dealers" he sewed up the most votes, but nowhere near 51% he would need in a general election. It could be the GOP is upset that Trump represents a LOSING strategy more than being upset he represents an immoral one. Before this is all over with you will hear Trump tell the GOP to KMA. That'll be fun.
I'm sure there was an exact date and time when Trump first realized he had the business skills to run a hostile takeover of the entire Gop, fucking clowns in charge of millions and millions of dollars! Trump saw the Republican party as a warehouse full of Scrooge McDuck-Size piles of riches, and the only door had a sleeping John McCain with a rusty ole shotgun guarding it, and Sarah Palin with an American flag. Easy pickins. So Trump grabbed the flag and Sarah, that left McCain. (the loser)
Let me remind everyone that even after Trump loses, there will still be ..what, 75 million racists running free?
As Stavros and Trish will tell you- History and Physics are NEVER wrong, once you separate human error from the text.
It used to be if you lived in a small rural community, and you drove fifteen minutes to the next town for your job, people thought you had demons. Nobody locks their doors there. They all know each other. Feel an AMERICAN kinship with each other. Look out for each other. All the taxes they pay go to fix the city's problems. The Goddam drugs came from THE CITY!!!!
I kinda think the Republicans look to their President as a Father figure, because they're rural, like in olde Europe the villages looked to the village elder or wiseman to call the play in the huddle. While Democrats think all the players in the huddle should vote, and let the wiseman play his position. Everyone in Congress has paid civil service jobs.
And now that them country boys have krank and the internet and cable TV, we may be seeing lots of personality changes in the GOP. Look at Ashlyn Creamer!!!
Game of Thrones meets American Idol.

[buttslinger]

Well, this week I'm going to give the nomination to Trump......
What's the alternative, CRUZ?????????????
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/john-boehner-says-ted-cruz-is-%e2%80%9clucifer-in-the-flesh%e2%80%9d-and-a-%e2%80%9cmiserable-son-of-a-bitch%e2%80%9d/ar-BBsnppT?li=BBnb7Kz


http://s32.postimg.org/xz95r49ud/msnbc_fiorina_hardball_2_800x430.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
image hosting no registration (http://postimage.org/)

[sukumvit boy]

Satire from "The Onion"...
http://www.theonion.com/graphic/how-gop-plans-stop-trump-52808

[Stavros]

The Kennedy Assassination? Is the USA ever going to let go of it? What next, is Trump related to Davy Crockett, Paul Revere and George Washington? Or is someone going to talk about jobs, health-care, and education? And I thought Labour was losing it (all over again) with Ken Livingstone and Hitler....

[buttslinger]

Looks like Trump V Clinton Debates in the fall.........
The Democrats have said they wanted Trump and it seems like the Democrats are getting everything they want this year. Donald Trump has never been in a Debate with half the seats filled with Democrats.
It's going to sound like the Jerry Springer show.
I....cannot....wait.

[fred41]

Satire from "The Onion"...
http://www.theonion.com/graphic/how-gop-plans-stop-trump-52808

Some really, really funny stuff...thanks for posting.




The Kennedy Assassination? Is the USA ever going to let go of it? What next, is Trump related to Davy Crockett, Paul Revere and George Washington? Or is someone going to talk about jobs, health-care, and education? And I thought Labour was losing it (all over again) with Ken Livingstone and Hitler....

You know Stavros, at first I thought you were quoting something from "The Onion"...and then I saw this : http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/05/03/trump-bizarrely-links-cruzs-father-jfk-assassin-cruz-goes-ballistic/83874972/

This is fucking ridiculous. Trump quotes a lunatic article from The National Enquirer. You know, the paper that talks about 'BatBoy" and the Devil coming out of a volcano.
I'm stunned.
Even if I had a delusional fever. Even if I simply wanted to watch a train wreck.
Even if I was going to do what a lot of voters are going to do - which is vote for anyone but Hillary.

I...C'mon really??!!
I can't . Really?!!
Is it okay to say every silly thing that comes to mind when running for President now? WTF?
How can you vote for someone who has less impulse control than a two year old?

Anyway read this article/editorial opinion about Labour this morning - http://nypost.com/2016/05/02/britains-left-is-melting-down-over-rampant-anti-semitism/

....is it accurate?

[Stavros]

Anyway read this article/editorial opinion about Labour this morning - http://nypost.com/2016/05/02/britains-left-is-melting-down-over-rampant-anti-semitism/

....is it accurate?

It is partially accurate, but for a detailed, sometimes tedious sometimes shocking rebuttal of the claims the first link will help, but note too a rebuttal of the rebuttal in the second link for an additional view, though it may be too much reading on a subject alien to this thread.
https://opendemocracy.net/uk/jamie-stern-weiner/jeremy-corbyn-hasn-t-got-antisemitism-problem-his-opponents-do
https://frankpodmore.com/tag/labour-party/

The sad fact of the matter is that there has been a persistent if muted anti-semitism in Britain which has been obscured because it became morally reprehensible after 1945 whereas before that making casual remarks about 'the Jews' was not uncommon, just as in more recent years people have modified the way they talk about the Irish, Black people and to a lesser extent Muslims owing to the feeling that at the moment they are 'fair game' because of the outrageous acts of violence committed by so-called radical Muslims. Such views are found in all parties, not just Labour, and for what its worth some of the views that have been expressed about women and the childish behaviour of some MP's in Parliament suggests that women remain the most likely social group to be on the receiving end of the most prejudice in public life. As to to reasons specific to Labour Party, this has a long history on which I will share my views if you are interested.
Note that we go to the Polls on Thursday so the results, for mostly local elections in England and Wales, the Scottish Assembly, and the Mayor of London will be the first elections of note since Corbyn became party leader.

[fred41]

Well I made it about two thirds through the first rebuttal article, when I realize it was pointless because the author seemed clearly biased and I'm being kind...but I will revisit and trudge through 'til finish in the morning, because the article may redeem itself with an unexpected piece of profound insight. It's supposed to be a rebuttal, but.....

The prejudice you speak of happens in all walks of life...but not always to the extent of being posted on social media by a politician. You'd like to think that a politician would be more 'aware'....unless of course that person thought their comments were part of the norm...or at least, part of a preconceived collective agreement amongst his audience.
I agree with you 100% on women bearing the most prejudice, at least on a global scale. That's a point that needs it's own thread...or at least another discussion someplace....any place.

...and I am always interested in hearing your views - so please share them...









(though you are often a bit stuffy or cranky when criticizing one of the Arts ...lol. [This can't be news to you])

[fred41]

Just reread the articles with a sober eye and I realize there is only so much I can glean from an article or two. Obviously there are going to be cultural differences in politics ,some based on history...and I assume it also depends on different regions of the U.K. I look forward to some of your comments on Thursdays, perhaps in one of the other threads Stavros...

on another note , what has been obvious for a while now is pretty much official - Trump's the presumptive nominee

want to write more, but I'm stuck doing it on my phone and it's frustrating

[buttslinger]

Jeez, CNN is the best Reality Show on TV now.
Too bad the Revolution won't be televised.

One name I haven't heard on the news shows is Ken Starr, but to me, he is the reason I can't wait for Hillary.
Ken Starr took a family problem, and turned it into a lurid peep show, and probably sealed the 2000 election for Bush, along with Scalia.
Those kinds of wounds don't heal, and now it's PAYBACK time for the GOP.
And Hillary is just the vindictive bitch to do the job.

Trump, on the other hand, he doesn't even really belong to the GOP, and the juicy question now is going to be which LEGITIMATE Politician will flush his good name down the toilet and be Trump's VP.
Stockdale?

Of all the Republican Clowns, I'm glad Trump gets the nomination, because if anything, the USA is a TEST to see how much shit you can throw at it and still have Old Glory waving after the smoke clears. This is not good. It is GREAT!!!!!!!


http://s32.postimg.org/82il43h7p/article_2508236_1971879_C00000578_83_634x832.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
photo hosting (http://postimage.org/)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGaoXAwl9kw

[Stavros]

...and I am always interested in hearing your views - so please share them...


On Israel and the Labour Party I would say that across the last 100 years you can see that there was an Old Left that took a positive view of Israel, and the emergence in the crucial 'long decade' 1967-1979 of a New Left which has consistently attacked it. The Old Left was forged on the anvil of the anti-fascist struggles of the 1930s, fighting Mosley's British Union of Fascists at home, fighting for or supporting the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, and supporting anti-imperial movements, such as Gandhi and Indian independence. For the Old Left that was committed to Parliamentary politics and made up of people such as Michael Foot, Ian Mikardo, Richard Crossman and Jo Richardson, along with liberal moderates like Harold Wilson, the creation of Israel in 1948 was an act of liberation and justice, and crucially, through David Ben-Gurion's Mapai party (a fraternal party to Labour in the Socialist International) it was Labour Zionism that triumphed. Thus the Old Left supported Israel for humanitarian reasons in the aftermath of the War and the revelations about the Holocaust, but also because they saw Israel as the first Socialist state in the Middle East, a state that would use agriculture -think Kibbutz and Moshav- as the collective endeavour for a renewal of Jewish life in a Jewish state. The ugly circumstances in which the British had been fought in Palestine, and the manner in which Israel was created was glossed over in favour of the socialist dream, just as this Old Left supposedly committed to an internationalist movement in effect supported nationalism through its support for national liberation movements, a contradiction the left in general has never been able to deal with.
This all changed in that 'long decade' 1967-1979 which saw the crushing defeat of the Arabs in 1967 and the commitment of the USA to Israel's defence, intensifying the Cold War in the region; the emergence of the Palestinian 'resistance' movement; the nationalisation of the region's oil resources, and the consolidation of military dictatorships in Libya, Algeria, Egypt, Syria and Iraq; and latterly the emergence of Political Islam, crystallised in the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979.
By this time, the Labour Party had seen an influx of the New Left, mostly Trotskyists who had abandoned small agit-prop groups to focus on the 'authentic voice of the working class' in an attempt, at which they succeeded, to take the party to the left and provide leadership for the workers.
Ken Livingstone was in fact outside the small cell of Trotskyists who engineered the left turn in the 1970s-1980s (the Chartists or Socialist Charter group from the London School of Economics) but was identified as leadership material as he stood out in local politics in the London Borough of Camden, and became part of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy in the 1970s which sought to return the party to its 'grass-roots' at the expense of the Parliamentary Party -a movement that is fundamental to Corbyn's present strategy.

In that crucial decade the left in general was demonstrating against apartheid South Africa and the bomb, but critically the US and its involvement in Vietnam, and just as the Old Left had opposed British imperialism and fascism in the 1930s, the New Left attacked the US and because it supported Israel the New Left viewed the Jewish State (and Iran) as outposts of American imperialism in the Middle East. The problem for the New Left in the 1970s was that the Palestinian resistance, which adopted the armed struggle late in 1967 used aeroplane hi-jackings, bombings and assassinations to fight back against Israel but in the process lost any friends they might have had across the world. For the New Left, however, the 'armed struggle' -and to the Palestinian cause you can add Northern Ireland- became the military component of revolutionary politics of the kind associated with Cuba and Vietnam, regardless of what was created when the revolution was won in those countries -given that this New Left constantly derided others on the left as 'Stalinists' without seeing the connection between Stalinist administrations and the political movements they supported.
The problem with Israel deepened in 1977 when Menachem Begin's Likud Party smashed the Labour Party's grip on Israel and in effect began dismantling the socialist elements of the country -these days a Kibbutz is not so much a building bloc of Israeli society as a commercial farm- and took a more aggressive approach to settlement building in the Occupied Territories, and the pursuit of Israel's enemies abroad.
It is from this period that a confusion arises over the critique of Zionism as an ideology or construct -the problem being that Zionism is not one thing but a collection of attitudes and policies- while the disaster of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, attempting to manage up to a million hostile Arabs, caused deep splits within Israel as well as in those supporters of Israel across the world.
In the 1980s the tide turned against Israel because of the war in Lebanon and the first Intifada, and this undoubtedly generated more interest in the Palestinian cause and led to an attempt to go back in history and look again at Zionism and how it developed. Israel for the Left, thus switched from being an expression of justice and humanity -Old Left- to an outpost of American imperialism -New Left- that had been created through violence and intimidation by groups associated with Fascism and whose Nationalist aspirations were wrapped up in Biblical justification. To a degree, Likud fostered this aggressive view of Israel by giving licence to settlement activity by small groups whose attitudes have opened up a rift between the coastal, Liberal Israel of beach-life and high tech industry, to the West Bank of biblical zealots, indeed, bigots with appalling attitudes to women who think all the Arabs, indeed, all non-Jews should be expelled from the country.
Thus the New Left has now had a history of offering political support to the Palestinian 'resistance' -which to some is equivalent to supporting terrorists- but has done so because of its pathological need to be seen as the avant garde of revolutionary politics without bothering too much with the details. It was thus possible for the New Left to offer political support to Sinn Fein in the 1980s claiming that it was a socialist party, even though it was blatantly nationalist, the political wing of the IRA and opposed to the Labour Party as part of the British establishment. Similarly, the defence of HAMAS as a component of the Palestinian resistance ignores completely the origins of the movement and its connections to the Muslim Brotherhood in favour of a longer term strategy of supporting the revolutionary option. Incredible as it seems, the Socialist Worker's Party in the UK produced a banner headline in their weekly paper in 1979 which read something like 'All The Way with the Ayatollahs' on the basis that the Iranian left would be able to use the popular revolution to steer Iran in the 'right' direction, for the New Left is obsessed with the Bolshevik Revolution and the view that even a tiny Leninist party can take advantage of the revolutionary moment and achieve an improbable victory, and improbable as it seems, Corbyn, John McDonnell and others still see this as an option in the UK and abroad, although there are rumours that McDonnell has fallen out with Corbyn, McDonnell having fallen out with Livingstone in the 1980s.

I realise now that this doesn't actually address anti-semitism in the Labour Party, not least because the New Left may be there in the leadership, but not the membership as a whole, and the party is still a broad if declining coalition of interests. I think the confused messages over Israel, the Occupied West Bank, and the reluctance to deal with religious bigots on all sides is part of the confusion, just as blanket atheism which denounces religions as fantasies about sky-gods and miracles itself enables anti-semites to attack Israel and Jews. In Livingstone's case, relying on analogies of Zionism and the Third Reich to me is intellectial laziness -Livingstone read a book he agrees with (Trotskyst Lenni Brenner's Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, 1983) and sees no reason to change his mind. He has made himself look foolish but can't see it, and the media which has enjoyed taking him for a ride for more than 30 years now is just as much to blame as their long term objective is to weaken the Labour Party usig any means necessary, as if the media needed to do what the party is managing to do all by itself, much as the Republican Party has got itself into an ideological hole and can't stop digging.

Maybe it is time to begin the difficult and uncertain process of creating new political parties to suit the emerging 21st century and to ditch the tired old political positions that have yielded so little in real terms where the issues that really do matter are jobs, housing, health and education, not the Bible, revolution or the sword.

[broncofan]

Hi Fred,
I have also followed the anti-semitism scandal in Labour. Although I do not know much about Labour's history regarding Israel, many of the comments of late only ostensibly relate to Israel and do not offer a broad or coherent critique of Israel's policies but involve outright anti-semitism, historical revisionism, and other packaged anti-semitism that is more directed at Jewish stereotypes than human rights.

Vicki Kirby was suspended from Labour for writing about Jewish noses and saying that Hitler was the Zionist God. Gerry Downing was suspended for wanting to solve "the Jewish question", another person for asking why we have to continuously hear about Hitler's murder of the zionists (of course Hitler did not care whether the Jews he killed were zionists or not). Then there are the controversial comments by Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone, which again were ostensibly directed at Israel but were unusually extreme. Naz Shah posted a graphic that basically called for the transfer of all Jews to the United States and another graphic with Hitler in it that said, "everything Hitler did during WWII was legal......therefore oppose Israeli apartheid." Of course, I don't believe that the Reichstag had actually passed laws calling for the murder of Jews, the Roma, homosexuals and political prisoners but I could be wrong.

Then Ken Livingstone came to Naz Shah's defense and claimed that she was only being vilified by zionists. Apropos of nothing, he claimed that Hitler was a supporter of Zionism. Many eminent historians have weighed in on this claim, and said it is excruciatingly misleading. Zionists wanted to help get Jews out of Germany before it was obvious they were going to be murdered, and the Germans did consider cooperating with them to expel their Jewish population. Hitler did not support the aim of establishing a Jewish state but did consider Palestine as one of several places to transport Jews out of Germany. The only time Hitler discussed the actual creation of a Jewish state was years before the Haavara agreement, in Mein Kampf, where he said it would be a convenient place from which Jews could carry out their swindles on the rest of the world and so he opposed its creation.

Jeremy Corbyn and others in the Labour party have spent a good deal of time claiming that the only people who would oppose these comments are Tories, Blairites, or Zionists. There have been some other unusual quirks I want to briefly mention.

When someone makes a comment that has not much to do with Zionism but is directed at Jews, the stock response of many in Labour is, "there is a difference between anti-zionism and anti-semitism". While this may be true, they will say it without regard to the comments being contested. So this would be a standard response to someone saying, "The Jews love money and have big noses".

The other thing is that anyone who makes an earnest attempt to combat the problem of anti-semitism in the party is seen as a traitor to Jeremy Corbyn. John Mann, an MP, aggressively went after Ken Livingstone after he made his Hitler comments and called him a bigot of some kind. He was aggressive and perhaps his actions can be seen a breach of decorum, though fairly minor. As of today, 20,000 people have signed a petition calling for him to be suspended from the party because of his "bullying behavior." However, most of these same people believe Ken Livingstone did nothing wrong and in my view are just upset that he has given the Tories fodder by opposing antisemitism within their party.

Other relevant topics: Jeremy Corbyn's letter in defense of Stephen Sizer, the use of the good Jews/bad Jews trope, and the many strange things Piers Corbyn, Jeremy's brother has posted on his twitter account. While one cannot be held to account for one's brother's views, Piers Corbyn posted a graphic of a Holocaust survivor on Twitter saying "an antisemite used to be someone who hates Jews, now it's someone the Jews hate." The implications are several fold: 1. If a Holocaust survivor says something that very few Jews would agree with, it's credible because he is a Jew revealing the secrets of the Jews; 2. real anti-semitism is obsolete as a prejudice; and 3. the Jews are a vindictive cabal who now use manufactured claims of antisemitism to undermine the gentile.

I realize this is off-topic, but it is relevant I suppose as to how people waste energy instead of focusing on issues important to the public.

[fred41]

Thanks Stavros, for the fairly detailed post on Labour's history dealing with Israel. As an aside, I have to admit to a bit of envy - I wish to God I could write like you without a single edit.

It's interesting how, from an anecdotal point of view - dealing with articles/editorials I have read and people I have spoken to in every day conversations, there is a slight difference in political viewpoint as to why they may be anti-Israel.
From what you have written, it seems the main difference across the Atlantic is this:
It at least seems in the U.K., Israel is sometimes hated because, in arguments, it is seen as a puppet of the United States. Whereas here, in our country, some of our citizens feel that we, the United States (meaning our gov't) are a puppet of Israel.

...and thanks, Bronco for further illumination on the individuals in the Labour Party who triggered this conversation to begin with. It's funny that , in newspaper articles, some writers/editorialists who choose to defend what was said or written by Corbyn and associates, wind up having to dissect their words and sentences like a very well payed lawyer does, during a Hail Mary defense of an obviously guilty perpetrator of a Felony crime. That's a very loud red flag. If you have to be defended with word acrobatics, then you're probably an anti-semite.

I can understand a rational debate on Israel and it's politics...but it always comes across as disingenuous when you have to dump on a country using the egregious hyperbole, usually reserved for blood soaked butchers...without ever really addressing actual blood soaked butchers,...but in fact, often romanticizing them.

I get it -it's cool and easy amongst some classes to unfairly castigate Israel...and sometimes Jews in general. They're often a small minority...or at the very least, they're usually perceived as white...but if a person is going to try to raise his political street cred by supporting the perceived underdog...it would be nice, to make sure, that underdog your supporting in words and deeds, isn't in fact a vicious beast. The same holds true for people who generally fall in love with any fascist, dictator or unelected ruler around the globe,....especially if they're an enemy of ones own country.

and anyway, as both Stavros and Bronc have said...don't these politicians have more important things to consider...like governing and solving problems such as the economy?

[Stavros]

If I were to fine tune my earlier post, it would be to stress that the New Left view was a fringe view in the Labour Party until Corbyn was elected leader. Up to this point most (I think all) Labour leaders since Harold Wilson in the 1960s have been members of the Labour Friends of Israel -Wilson wrote a passionate book The Chariot of Israel (1981), Blair and Mandelson are both fans -probably even more so than Miliband, while Gordon Brown spent many summers in Israel in the company of his clerical father. From this perspective, the attacks on Corbyn are part of a wider campaign to discredit him, though his past has let him down on this anyway, and others are discovering that in the age of social media and forensic googling, something said or written years ago is not forgotten. Corbyn's relentless attacks on the EU expose the weakness of his present position, while he has apparently abandoned a planned trip to Turkey where he was due to speak in favour of Turkey's accession to the EU, a crazy idea and a vote loser if ever there was one.
In any case, since 1948 successive British government's have not had good relations with Israel, at best the relationship has been cool, at worst, when Begin was Prime Minister Israel was hostile enough to support Argentina during the Falklands War, and the UK has never had much of a role to play in the peace process. This may also be because for a long time the Foreign Office was viewed as 'Arabist', and the Conservatives were perceived to be closer to the Arab potentates. And to a degree, yes, the election of Corbyn is being perceived as part of this trend for parties to vacate the centre for the more extreme fringes of politics, but at the moment it is not clear how far to the left Corbyn has been able to take the party, so it may not be 'as bad' as the extent to which some Americans see the Republican Party adrift from the broad mass of American voters. Time will tell, Corbyn's primary aim is not to win power in a general election, but to radicalise the party, but I do wonder how far the tepid British voter -maybe the English voter, if we discount Scotland and Wales- wants radical politics, after all UKIP is in its own way a radical party and has little to show for it.