PDA

View Full Version : Bernie Sanders



Woodsman
04-29-15, 05:02 PM
Matt Taibbi is positively gushing over Bernie Sanders.


But Sanders genuinely, sincerely, does not care about optics. He is the rarest of Washington animals, a completely honest person. If he's motivated by anything other than a desire to use his influence to protect people who can't protect themselves, I've never seen it. Bernie Sanders is the kind of person who goes to bed at night thinking about how to increase the heating-oil aid program for the poor... His concept of "Democratic Socialism" as I've come to understand it over the years is that an elected government should occasionally step in and offer an objection or two toward our progress to undisguised oligarchy...

http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/2015/article/give-em-hell-bernie-20150429/194033/medium_rect/1430315097/720x405-470455930.jpg

Give 'Em Hell, Bernie (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/give-em-hell-bernie-20150429)

lektrode
04-29-15, 08:11 PM
Matt Taibbi is positively gushing over Bernie Sanders.

Give 'Em Hell, Bernie (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/give-em-hell-bernie-20150429)

+1

just shows to go ya how screwed up the whole 'system' has got...
(when guys like me get to thinkin - uh oh - the 'ultimate ticket' at this point would be bernie+liz - not necessarily in that order - or to put it another way: ANYBODY BUT hitlery... ;)

shiny!
04-30-15, 10:48 AM
Sanders is interesting. I took a quiz (http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm) to see what candidates were most closely aligned with my thinking. Bernie came up #1 and, to my embarrassment, Cruz was #2, probably for his promise to eliminate the IRS. What are my chances of a Sanders-Cruz ticket for '16?

vt
04-30-15, 12:23 PM
Under Obama, the poor have lost ground, while the rich have become richer.

Bernie would bring more equality: the poor get a little poorer, the rich a lot poorer.

don
05-11-15, 07:39 AM
how it works . . .

What the Democrats really want is the left’s silence. The left, as disorganized as it is, is the source of ideas, energy and passion for a party that is an empty vessel of corporate sloganeering. The left spawns the movements and ideas that both form and motivate the Democratic base. That’s where the Democrats draw their votes from, but the party needs money from corporations and plutocrats to run its machinery and to play its part in what is projected to be a $5 billion (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/230318-the-5-billion-campaign) presidential campaign. More than that, the Democrats are one wing of the party of Wall Street, so they will never fulfill any social-justice demands without a powerful push from below.

In the general election, the Democrats need the left to be silent about how bankrupt and corrupt the party is so it can gloss its rush to the right in a veneer of progressive rhetoric. The role of Progressives for Obama (http://www.thenation.com/article/progressives-obama)in 2008 was to push as many leftists into the campaign as possible and then attack those disinclined to support a candidate who supported more war, bailouts with no accountability for Wall Street, and wanted to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to pay for the financial catastrophe.

After Sanders tossed his hat in the ring for the Democratic presidential nominee, there was the predictable Sanders-is-the-real-progressive-in-this-race column from the usual quarters (http://www.thenation.com/blog/205865/6-degrees-separation-between-bernie-sanders-and-hillary-clinton). And there is already “The People for Bernie Sanders (http://www.peopleforbernie.com/)” working to corral the left into the Democratic Party. It’s easy to forecast how this will end.

In July 2016, at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, after Sanders’ team meets with Hillary Clinton’s senior strategists but not the nominee herself, his campaign manager speaks to the media: “We are proud of all we accomplished, the millions of Americans who cast their votes for the Sanders 2016 campaign, and the issues we raised about economic inequality, the struggling middle class, and an economy rigged for the benefit of a few billionaires. Senator Sanders may not be the nominee in 2016, but the concerns he championed are front and center.”

When asked about the closed-door meeting and Clinton’s $2 billion (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-presidential-campaign.html) in campaign contributions from Wall Street and wealthy donors, Sanders’ manager says, “What we got from the Clinton campaign was a commitment to begin the process to talk about reducing income inequality. We’ve moved. They’ve moved. It’s truly unity in that sense. We are fully behind Hillary Clinton as our party’s presidential nominee for 2016, and are our only focus for the next 100 days is to make sure she is elected to that office. Thank you.”

I’m not making this up. The above quote (http://lubbockonline.com/stories/071104/nat_071104038.shtml) is paraphrased from the Dennis Kucinich 2004 campaign. He ran on opposition to the Iraq War, but by the convention Kucinich backed the nominee, John Kerry, whose position was to escalate the war, in exchange for vague promises.

Every time a progressive challenges the mainstream Democratic candidates, such as Kucinich, Jerry Brown in 1992, Jesse Jackson in 1988, Ted Kennedy in 1980, there is a pattern. If the insurgent campaign catches fire, it raises progressive hopes that the Democrats might finally have a presidential nominee more on the level of the party’s grassroots than C-suite executives. But the campaign is overwhelmed by money pouring into the coffers of whichever Wall Street Democrat clinches the nomination. Because the progressive standard-bearer ran in a process that is impossible for a real left-wing candidate to win, they were defeated before they ever began.

But the progressive serves an important purpose. They energize the activist base and raise hopes that the Democratic Party is open to progressive ideas, even though the money, use of super-delegates (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D-Alloc.phtml) and drawn-out primary limit the victors circle to establishment candidates. Sanders campaign will help divide the left and bind many of them to the Democratic Party. Over the next six months expect articles that either praise Sanders as a populist (http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/05/01/sanders-challenge), progressive (http://www.salon.com/2015/05/01/2016s_progressive_offbeat_anti_candidate_how_berni e_sanders_promises_to_shake_up_the_debate/), left (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/04/30/403362588/why-hillary-clinton-is-just-fine-with-bernie-sanders-candidacy) champion, or attack anyone who thinks his campaign is a waste of time. Pushing liberal ideas branded as socialist to a national audience may open a little ideological space, but it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and armies of volunteers that could be far better used for independent organizing.

Short of a mile-wide asteroid smacking into the earth, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party nominee. She needs challengers to enliven a primary that is more coronation than contest, and she needs the sparring to keep her in fighting shape for the general election. Plus, having a left-wing candidate allows her to appear as the responsible moderate who stakes out corporate-friendly positions slathered in progressive blather.

By the time the convention is over, those progressives who hopped on board the Sanders train to nowhere will have reconciled themselves with supporting Hillary, whatever their misgivings. It’s basic psychology.

Arun Gupta

thriftyandboringinohio
05-11-15, 09:40 AM
It's not just the United States. Apparently it works just the same way in Canada, too.


"He was the only man I ever knew who could get money from the rich and votes from the poor with the promise to protect them from each other."
- Tommy Douglas, Former Saskatchewan Premier and Leader of the Federal New Democratic Party

Woodsman
05-11-15, 03:52 PM
It's not just the United States. Apparently it works just the same way in Canada, too.

That's life in these United States of Mouseland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouseland):


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


It's the story of a place called Mouseland. Mouseland was a place where all the little mice lived and played, were born and died. And they lived much the same as you and I do.

They even had a Parliament. And every four years they had an election. Used to walk to the polls and cast their ballots. Some of them even got a ride to the polls. And got a ride for the next four years afterwards too. Just like you and me. And every time on election day all the little mice used to go to the ballot box and they used to elect a government. A government made up of big, fat, black cats.

Now if you think it strange that mice should elect a government made up of cats, you just look at the history of Canada for last 90 years and maybe you'll see that they weren't any stupider than we are.

Now I'm not saying anything against the cats. They were nice fellows. They conducted their government with dignity. They passed good laws--that is, laws that were good for cats. But the laws that were good for cats weren't very good for mice. One of the laws said that mouseholes had to be big enough so a cat could get his paw in. Another law said that mice could only travel at certain speeds--so that a cat could get his breakfast without too much effort.

All the laws were good laws. For cats. But, oh, they were hard on the mice. And life was getting harder and harder. And when the mice couldn't put up with it any more, they decided something had to be done about it. So they went en masse to the polls. They voted the black cats out. They put in the white cats.

Now the white cats had put up a terrific campaign. They said: "All that Mouseland needs is more vision." They said: "The trouble with Mouseland is those round mouseholes we got. If you put us in we'll establish square mouseholes." And they did. And the square mouseholes were twice as big as the round mouseholes, and now the cat could get both his paws in. And life was tougher than ever.

And when they couldn't take that anymore, they voted the white cats out and put the black ones in again. Then they went back to the white cats. Then to the black cats. They even tried half black cats and half white cats. And they called that coalition. They even got one government made up of cats with spots on them: they were cats that tried to make a noise like a mouse but ate like a cat.

You see, my friends, the trouble wasn't with the colour of the cat. The trouble was that they were cats. And because they were cats, they naturally looked after cats instead of mice.

Presently there came along one little mouse who had an idea. My friends, watch out for the little fellow with an idea. And he said to the other mice, "Look fellows, why do we keep on electing a government made up of cats? Why don't we elect a government made up of mice?" "Oh," they said, "he's a Bolshevik. Lock him up!" So they put him in jail.

But I want to remind you: that you can lock up a mouse or a man but you can't lock up an idea.


Turns out Tommy was wrong about ideas, but it's a great story nevertheless.

lektrode
05-11-15, 08:46 PM
That's life in these United States of Mouseland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouseland):...
Turns out Tommy was wrong about ideas, but it's a great story nevertheless.

+1

vt
07-10-15, 12:26 AM
Bernie Sanders exposes Obama's lies about unemployment:

http://freebeacon.com/politics/bernie-sanders-real-unemployment-rate-is-10-5/

lektrode
07-12-15, 02:22 PM
Guest Post: Why Donald Trump Surged in the Polls (And Why It Matters) (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-12/guest-post-why-donald-trump-surged-polls-and-why-it-matters)

don
07-12-15, 03:09 PM
http://images.politico.com/global/2015/07/11/151107_donald_trump_1160_ap2_1160x629.jpg

mi bueno amigo




Finally, one has to wonder about the provenance of the Trump phenomenon. Seemingly coming out of nowhere, it’s been attributed to a populist upsurge against the regnant elites, who are so out of touch with the people that they never saw what was coming. The media, we are told, are biased against Trump – this is one of The Donald’s chief complaints – and now The People are rising up against the Washington-New York know-it-alls with their “big words (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/12/trump-stupid-jeb-president-obama-big-words.html)” and pretentious airs.

Yet this analysis is lacking in one key ingredient: the facts. For the reality is that the media, far from ignoring Trump, have lavished so much attention (https://www.google.com/search?q=trump&ie=UTF-8&tbm=nws)on him that he’s eating up coverage that would otherwise go to the rest of the crowded Republican field. And that may be a clue as to what’s really going on here….

The usual “mainstream” media tactics regarding a political outsider they hate is to ignore him or her: the example of Ron Paul should suffice to make this point. Indeed, Jon Stewart pointed this out in a memorable “Daily Show” segment (http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/in35c7/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier), and it took Paul three runs for the White House to get their attention. Trump has suffered no such fate: quite the opposite, in fact. The Donald’s every demagogic pronouncement is faithfully recorded and broadcast far and wide. Over a hundred reporters crowded into his latest appearances in Las Vegas and Phoenix. Jeb Bush, for all the many millions stuffed into his campaign coffers, couldn’t buy that kind of exposure.

This gift to the Trump campaign is being celebrated by Democratic politicos and consultants as if it were manna from heaven. The Republican “brand,” they aver, is being sullied beyond redemption, and they’re watching this unanticipated and providential miracle from the peanut gallery with unalloyed glee (https://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.salon.com+trump&ie=UTF-8).

And yet … just how unanticipated is it?

As San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders points out (http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/Donald-Trump-and-the-GOP-Primary-of-Horrors-6378015.php?cmpid=twitter-desktop), Trump is not really any kind of Republican, and, what’s more, his links to the Clintons are well-documented and close:

“In 1987, Trump registered as a Republican in New York. But in 1999, he registered with the Independence Party. In 2001, he registered as a Democrat. In 2009 he was back in with the GOP.
“Hillary Rodham Clinton sat in the front row at Trump’s 2005 wedding with Melania Knauss.

“According to Politico (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/donald-trump-donations-democrats-hillary-clinton-119071.html), Trump has donated more than $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

“In the 2006 cycle, Trump donated $5,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, $20,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, but only $1,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

“When Trump flirted with running for president in 2012, CNN reported (http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/28/trump.democrats/) he had given $541,650 to federal Democratic candidates and committees since 1990 – more than the $429,450 he contributed to GOP candidates and committees.”

National Review‘s Jonah Goldberg rips the veil off Trump’s alleged nativism in a by turns anguished-and-amused plea (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421045/donald-trump-fraud) to his fellow conservatives not to be taken in by The Donald’s act:

“You seem to think he’s an immigration hardliner, and he’s certainly pretending to be. But why can’t you see through it? He condemned Mitt Romney (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420979/trump-hit-romney-being-too-tough-and-too-alienating-hispanics-immigration-rich-lowry) as an immigration hardliner in 2012 and favored comprehensive immigration reform. He told Bill O’Reilly he was in favor of a ‘path to citizenship’ (http://www.glennbeck.com/2015/07/09/pro-choice-pro-amnesty-pro-oprah-all-the-reasons-you-should-not-vote-for-donald-trump/) for 30 million illegal immigrants:

“Trump: ‘You have to give them a path. You have 20 million, 30 million, nobody knows what it is. It used to be 11 million. Now, today I hear it’s 11, but I don’t think it’s 11. I actually heard you probably have 30 million. You have to give them a path, and you have to make it possible for them to succeed. You have to do that.’

“Question: Just how many rapists and drug dealers did Donald Trump want to give green cards to?”

Trump has been playing the media with his supposed presidential ambitions for years, but it was clear then that it was just The Donald doing what he does best – promoting himself. So why now has he suddenly turned “serious”? I give that word scare quotes because 1) Serious is not a word one associates with a clown, and 2) It’s not at all clear that, for all his megalomania, he really thinks he can win the White House. He may be a lunatic but he’s far from stupid.

And so the question jumps out at us: Why now?

Although I have no concrete proof of my theory, there’s plenty of circumstantial evidence. His ties to the Clintons, his past pronouncements which are in such blatant contradiction to his current fulminations, and the cries of joy from the Clintonian gallery and the media (or do I repeat myself) all point to a single conclusion: the Trump campaign is a Democratic wrecking operation aimed straight at the GOP’s base.

Donald Trump is a false-flag candidate. It’s all an act, one that benefits his good friend Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party that, until recently, counted the reality show star among its adherents. Indeed, Trump’s pronouncements – the open racism, the demagogic appeals, the faux-populist rhetoric – sound like something out of a Democratic political consultant’s imagination, a caricature of conservatism as performed by a master actor.

Now I realize this is a “conspiracy theory,” and, as we all know, there are no conspiracies in politics. In that noble profession, everything is completely aboveboard and on the level – right?

Like hell it is.

by Justin Raimondo (http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/author/justin-raimondo/) • July 13, 2015

don
07-15-15, 06:42 AM
Bernie Sanders is the only major party candidate for President who favors a single payer national health insurance system.

What’s not to like?

That was the question Ralph Nader asked Chris Hedges on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. (http://ralphnaderradiohour.com/2015/07/11/chris-hedges-dr-nicholas-ashford/)

“Bernie Sanders wants to break up the New York banks, he wants to impose a Wall Street transaction tax, he wants to regulate drug prices, he’s for full Medicare for all — everybody in, nobody out, free choice of doctor and hospital — he wants to get rid of these corporate tax havens, he’s pushing for a $15 dollar an hour minimum wage, he wants to stronger labor unions. What’s not to like?” Nader asked Hedges.

“Because he did it within the Democratic establishment,” Hedges said. “He’s lending credibility to a party that is completely corporatized. He has agreed that he will endorse the candidate, which, unless there is some miracle, will be Hillary Clinton.”

“So what he does is he takes all of that energy, he raises all of these legitimate issues and he funnels it back into a dead political system so that by April it’s over.”

“That was the role of Van Jones in the last election,” Hedges said. “He was running around, using the language of Occupy — Occupy the Vote — and that is what Bernie has done. I don’t understand. He fought the Democratic establishment in Vermont his entire career. Now he has sold out to it.”

... they have to be outside the system. And we have to begin to build movements that are divorced from the Democratic and Republican parties. My fear is that by this time next year, Bernie Sanders is running around once again repeating this mantra of the least worst and stoking fears against whoever the Republican candidate is. And we’ve gone nowhere.”

“We’ve seen that routine before,” Nader said. “Unfortunately, Dennis Kucinich had to toe the line. He was done by April. They even kept him out of some of the debates. Yes, we have seen it before. They are done by April. And then they are forced into a loyalty oath to whoever wins the nomination. And of course, it’s invariably the corporate Democrats.”

... the party is completely captive to corporate power,” Hedges said. “And Bernie has cut a Faustian deal with the Democrats. And that’s not even speculation. I did an event with him and Bill McKibben, Naomi Klein and Kshama Sawant in New York the day before the Climate March. And Kshama Sawant ,the Socialist City Councilwoman from Seattle and I asked Sanders why he wanted to run as a Democrat. And he said — because I don’t want to end up like Nader.”

“He didn’t want to end up pushed out of the establishment,” Hedges said. “He wanted to keep his committee chairmanships, he wanted to keep his Senate seat. And he knew the forms of retribution, punishment that would be visited upon him if he applied his critique to the Democratic establishment. So he won’t.”

“The lie of omission is still a lie,” Hedges said. “Bernie’s decision to play the game within the Democratic Party and in essence lend credibility to the party and lend credibility to Hillary Clinton is very destructive.

Nader said that the retribution by the Democratic Party against their left is pretty harsh, “but not against their right.”

“Senator Joe Lieberman — he goes (in 2008) and he endorses McCain at the Republican National Convention against Obama and he comes back after Obama wins to Washington and they give him a major chair of a major Senate committee.”

Polish_Silver
03-07-16, 05:38 PM
Why are democrats voting for Hillary instead of Sanders?

Why is Hillary "more electable", if that is the perception?

Though I disagree with Sanders on many things, I have been very impressed by:

A) His voting record. He opposed the Iraq war and the Patriot act. Only Ron Paul and a few others can claim that.

B) High minded campaign. Talks about issues. No negative campaigning. No phone calls with recordings. Only real people who want to talk.

Excellent TV commercials about his concern for African Americans in the criminal justice system.

If anything, it's even higher minded than Ron Paul's campaign, and that is saying a lot.


I wish we had more leaders with his level of integrity, regardless of other issues.

Chomsky
03-07-16, 08:40 PM
Why are democrats voting for Hillary instead of Sanders?

Why is Hillary "more electable", if that is the perception?

Though I disagree with Sanders on many things, I have been very impressed by:

A) His voting record. He opposed the Iraq war and the Patriot act. Only Ron Paul and a few others can claim that.

B) High minded campaign. Talks about issues. No negative campaigning. No phone calls with recordings. Only real people who want to talk.

Excellent TV commercials about his concern for African Americans in the criminal justice system.

If anything, it's even higher minded than Ron Paul's campaign, and that is saying a lot.


I wish we had more leaders with his level of integrity, regardless of other issues.


Also, he has no PAC or SuperPAC. Gives him the impression of being incorruptible.

Of course, the very fact that he is running as a Democrat as an obvious sheepdog -- to herd the left into voting for Hillary, whom he said at the very outset that he would endorse if he loses -- puts the lie to that perception.

vt
03-07-16, 09:15 PM
The best Democrat ticket for the country would be:

Mark Warner - President

Jim Webb- Vice President

The nation doesn't need a left wing or right wing wingnut. We need to be the United States of America again. That can only come from the center.

Kasich in the only GOP that comes close. But Warner - Webb is the perfect combo.

Woodsman
03-08-16, 06:22 AM
...Of course, the very fact that he is running as a Democrat as an obvious sheepdog -- to herd the left into voting for Hillary, whom he said at the very outset that he would endorse if he loses -- puts the lie to that perception.

Chomsky, that's precisely the point Don was making in his post, only about Trump:



Donald Trump is a false-flag candidate. It’s all an act, one that benefits his good friend Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party that, until recently, counted the reality show star among its adherents. Indeed, Trump’s pronouncements – the open racism, the demagogic appeals, the faux-populist rhetoric – sound like something out of a Democratic political consultant’s imagination, a caricature of conservatism as performed by a master actor.


Trump draws the lumpen elements of the right from the GOP and sends the rest to Hillary. And you agree with Hedges that Sanders herds (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/07/the-trump-beating-and-the-hope-of-the-sandernistas/) the left for Hillary.

We seem to have a growing consensus that this election is one big kayfabe. But if this one's a fake, then was the last one? And how far back do we go before everyone agrees they were real?

So who is running this con? Because the fundamental assertion is that both parties and the media are being manipulated/deployed for the benefit of HRC. Is she really that powerful, a virtual American Putin? Or are there other actors (banks, Wall Street, the trusts) calling the shots?

You see what a strange place this is to be for iTulip?

Me, I'm still trying to figure out how one becomes the Independent (Socialist) Senator from Vermont in the land of the permanent Red Scare and COINTELPRO, but I'm old and slow to catch on to the big ideas.

Woodsman
03-09-16, 05:24 AM
So much for the narrative of inevitability. You should have seen the shock in the faces of the talking heads. They really did not want to report this.


"Bernie Sanders pulled off his biggest win of the Democratic presidential race on Tuesday, defeating Hillary Clinton in the Michigan primary on a night which also confirmed strong anti-establishment support for Donald Trump in the battle for the Republican nomination...The shock victory – by a margin of around 3 percentage points when his win was first projected by Associated Press – comes despite Sanders trailing the former secretary of state by an average of 21 points in recent opinion polling...With 130 delegates, Michigan was the second-largest prize of the election so far..."

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/08/bernie-sanders-wins-michigan-primary-hillary-clinton

Woodsman
03-09-16, 08:31 AM
The best Democrat ticket for the country would be:

Mark Warner - President

Jim Webb- Vice President

The nation doesn't need a left wing or right wing wingnut. We need to be the United States of America again. That can only come from the center.

Kasich in the only GOP that comes close. But Warner - Webb is the perfect combo.


Centrist Jim Webb leans to Trump.




"Jim Webb: I won't vote for Clinton, but I may for Trump

Former Democratic presidential candidate Jim Webb won’t be voting for Hillary Clinton, but he hasn’t ruled out casting his ballot for Donald Trump.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/jim-webb-no-hillary-clinton-220255"

Polish_Silver
03-09-16, 09:15 AM
So much for the narrative of inevitability. You should have seen the shock in the faces of the talking heads. They really did not want to report this.

I think it says a lot for Michigan. Is Clinton popular with African Americans? If so, Why ?

Hedges was also concerned about Sanders agreement to endorse "the winner". Perhaps he said it without thinking, or there was pressure on him to say it.

If he is dishonest, he makes a very good show of being honest.

shiny!
03-09-16, 12:24 PM
so much for the narrative of inevitability. You should have seen the shock in the faces of the talking heads. They really did not want to report this.

awesome!

vt
03-09-16, 01:04 PM
U.S. President David Rice Atchison

http://einsteinsrefrigerator.com/atchison/

vt
03-11-16, 10:58 PM
https://i.imgflip.com/10hhbw.jpg

Woodsman
03-12-16, 09:16 AM
Vandalism; the only thing left for the GOP.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/03/09/anti-socialism-bernie-sanders-meme-going-viral

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/03/09/defaced-bernie-yard-sign-turned-anti-socialism-meme-go-viral

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/08/take-a-look-at-the-anti-socialism-bernie-sanders-meme-going-viral-online-i-took-half-your-sign/

http://www.westernjournalism.com/look-photo-of-defaced-bernie-sanders-sign-instantly-goes-viral-destroys-socialism-perfectly/

You're only confusing yourself more, vt, and by consuming so many wingnut sources of information you will only end up isolating yourself further.

Don't take it personally. You are not your politics. Politics is not identity; it's just politics. You can change towards a politics of reality and truth without destroying the image of self you've worked hard to cultivate all these years. But you'll never be free of the crazy if you don't get out of the right wing Fox News, Brietbart, Glen Beck orbit. They're playing you for your worst self.

Save yourself, man. I'm rooting for you.

vt
03-12-16, 01:46 PM
Thank you Woody! I do agree that this was clearly vandalism by those evil right wingers. I don't like them either. But the intention was the humor of the message:-)

As you may know from other posts from me, I don't like either party. In fact I was sincere that a ticket made up of two moderate Democrats would be the best for the country. (Warmer-Webb) How very unGOP of me!

But what I will disagree with is any attempt to shut down free speech and assembly:

http://www.infowars.com/soros-funded-moveon-org-takes-credit-for-violence-in-chicago (http://www.infowars.com/soros-funded-moveon-org-takes-credit-for-violence-in-chicago/)

The link above is clearly from a right wing source, but unfortunately the liberal main stream media is not reporting it at all, or very rarely. Much of what is posted in any media is sometimes not true, lacking full facts, or twisted in some way.

We no longer have journalists. Instead we have propagandists that pick a side and only report items favorable to them or those which attack the other political side.

I read the Washington Post and New York Times. I rarely look at right wing publications. But when they are the only one reporting a fact, then I do pay a bit of attention.

I have ardent liberal and conservative long time friends. I listen but take their views with the bias in the subject.

You seem to support Sanders, and I understand why you find value in his platform. I don't like any that are running.

By the way Woody, while I do not agree with some of what you say, I see you are an excellent writer and appreciate the tone of your posts.

shiny!
03-12-16, 02:04 PM
But what I will disagree with is any attempt to shut down free speech and assembly:

http://www.infowars.com/soros-funded-moveon-org-takes-credit-for-violence-in-chicago/


Hey guys, this has nothing to do with the conversation, but can any of you follow the link vt gave and give me some enlightenment?

Just below the photo on that page is a caption, and just below the caption is a sanskrit-like symbol. I'm seeing sanskrit-y symbols everywhere lately on the web. What are they? What do they symbolize? They show up a lot on popups. I never know if clicking on them will make the popup go away or instead take me to a page where I don't want to go. I need a translation guide but don't even know what they're called to do a search.

Sorry for the interruption, but thanks.

vt
03-12-16, 06:26 PM
http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=picture&script=&direction=ES&link=yes

https://www.google.com/search?q=meaning+of+sanskrit+phrases+under+picture s&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-5OO8pbzLAhXH6x4KHbMDBPoQsAQIHA&biw=1366&bih=643

shiny!
03-12-16, 08:30 PM
http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=picture&script=&direction=ES&link=yes

https://www.google.com/search?q=meaning+of+sanskrit+phrases+under+picture s&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-5OO8pbzLAhXH6x4KHbMDBPoQsAQIHA&biw=1366&bih=643

Thanks for those, vt, but what I'm needing is a dictionary or legend to understand these sanskrit or hindu-like characters that are popping up all over in webpages everywhere. Where there used to be an X or an arrow there are now these weird characters. I don't know what they mean. Maybe something to do with social media or mobil computing?

EDIT: Finally figured it out! If I set Firefox to use my choice of fonts instead of what the website wants, I get weird sanskrit-like icons. When I allow websites to choose their own fonts, the "sanskrit" turns into quotation marks.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program...

vt
03-12-16, 08:46 PM
You got it!

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1035523

bpr
04-27-16, 05:03 AM
Interesting that there's not more about Sanders here. I voted yesterday out of self-interest, not ideology, and not for Sanders.

He's made an amazing run from a left-of-liberal stance and, yeah, it's eye-opening how progressive the voting public is.

Dennis Kucinich couldn't pull 5% anywhere, but that was a more diverse field, and the full ramifications of the bailout were pending.

Sanders has already won, simply by empowering the left with his turnouts and vote totals, only superceded by Clinton and Trump, both of whom had enormous name recognition before the race started.

Sanders is going to lose, but the elites are going to know just how many progressives are out here.

Why Did I Vote Hillary?
1. Full disclosure: I've met her. And when the second-most powerful woman (arguably, next to Angela Merkel, IMO) in the world smiles at you, says, "You must be ____. I love your father," my knees get weak and I forget how angry I am that Eric Holder just got his job back at the lobbying firm where he can represent the banks he didn't prosecute. It happened. And I spent nearly an hour with her, talking about our economy, the rust belt, and football (yes, football). I just couldn't go there.
2. Despite her early years, since the nineties she really has been progressive in her policies. I have reconciled the bankster donations with the fact that they really were her constituency: she was a senator from New York; of course her biggest donors are going to be from New York's biggest industry. Criticizing her for getting money from banks is as ludicrous as criticizing Grassley for getting money from Agribusiness.
3. I am far to the left of "center," and I recognize my position there. Sanders has not endured nearly the amount of criticism that Clinton has. If he were to win the nomination, then the vast amount of money spent (over 25 years) discrediting Hillary could all go toward him, and we'd be looking at a Republican president, and none of their options are even viable, AFAIC.

The Right isn't even being discreet about their support of Sanders:
https://www.americarisingpac.org/

No mention of Sanders at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us/politics/the-right-aims-at-democrats-on-social-media-to-hit-clinton.html?_r=0

Regardless of what the polls say right now, if Sanders got the nomination there would be a Red Scare throughout the summer that would result in a landslide for Trump/Cruz/Whoever.

No thank you.

#ImWithHer

EDIT: I will say this was the hardest primary decision I ever had to make, and the only time I've ever gone for a centrist candidate, but I am certain that she's the right candidate for the left. After 25 years of sexist bullshit being thrown at her the fact that she's still standing tells me she's practically bulletproof.

If she loses, it won't be because of Trump, Sanders, or any of the current crop, but rather it will be a victory of the likes of Gingrich, Buchanon, and Falwell, who started the vast right-wing conspiracy that everyone laughed at then, but generally accepts now.

Woodsman
04-27-16, 06:25 AM
Sounds to these old ears that you voted for her because of her star power. Because the king smiled upon you, you became the king's man; ready to do his business. Did you pull at your waistcoat and nervously sweep back your forelock in the presence of Majesty? I hear royals love it when their subjects do that.

Now that's just as good a reason as any other to vote, really. But be clear with yourself, you voted for a corrupt right wing politician who will in all likelihood pull us into the next world war so as to secure her place in history. You have cast a ballot that aligns yourself with the worst elements this country has produced in decades. You stand side by side with neocons like the Kagans and fascist plutocrats like Charles Koch.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/25/neocon-kagan-endorses-hillary-clinton/
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/why-right-wing-oligarch-charles-koch-doesnt-seem-concerned-about-hillary-presidency

Oh well, it won't be you who gets to go to the sandbox. And you can feel all righteous and intelligent for deploying your vote with such strategery. But please, the self-deception is nearly as embarrassing to read as the pleas for understanding.

Sanders seems willing to be shot in an open limo to serve his country and his people. But you can't even bring yourself to vote for the first viable left candidate this nation has produced in 30 years.

The only red scared is you, son.

bpr
04-27-16, 07:42 AM
That's a valid argument, except for the right-wing part. Make no mistake, my post was part confessional.

I wish I was stronger, but speaking truth to power is far easier said than done when confronted with such utter kindness.

It's simply disingenuous to refer to her as "right-wing" from the perspective of a Sanders "purist":
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-voting-history

Woodsman
04-27-16, 07:58 AM
That's a valid argument, except for the right-wing part. Make no mistake, my post was part confessional.

I wish I was stronger, but speaking truth to power ...

Please, stop it. It's quite embarrassing to see someone so confused attempting to justify their actions in such a ham-fisted manner. You voted for her because she was nice to you. Leave it at that. It is a genuine, human reaction and while apolitical as political goes, is infinitely preferable to the contortions and naivete necessary to support Hillary from the left.

bpr
04-27-16, 08:09 AM
Please, stop it. It's quite embarrassing to see someone so confused attempting to justify their actions in such a ham-fisted manner. You voted for her because she was nice to you. Leave it at that. It is a genuine, human reaction and while apolitical as political goes, is infinitely preferable to the contortions and naivete necessary to support Hillary from the left.

Wow. Your rudeness precedes you. That's another reason I moved away from Bernie, Bro!

Fact is, I don't vote against my own self-interest.

Woodsman
04-27-16, 08:25 AM
Wow. Your rudeness precedes you. That's another reason I moved away from Bernie, Bro!

Fact is, I don't vote against my own self-interest.

No, you voted because the nice lady smiled at you.

Polish_Silver
04-27-16, 09:00 AM
Interesting that there's not more about Sanders here. I voted yesterday out of self-interest, not ideology, and not for Sanders.

. . .

Why Did I Vote Hillary?
1. Full disclosure: I've met her. And when the second-most powerful woman (arguably, next to Angela Merkel, IMO) in the world smiles at you, says, "You must be ____. I love your father," my knees get weak and I forget how angry I am that Eric Holder just got his job back at the lobbying firm where he can represent the banks he didn't prosecute. It happened. And I spent nearly an hour with her, talking about our economy, the rust belt, and football (yes, football). I just couldn't go there.
2. Despite her early years, since the nineties she really has been progressive in her policies. I have reconciled the bankster donations with the fact that they really were her constituency: she was a senator from New York; of course her biggest donors are going to be from New York's biggest industry. Criticizing her for getting money from banks is as ludicrous as criticizing Grassley for getting money from Agribusiness.
. . .


I don't care who she gets money from.

I care how she votes.


Iraq war: yes

Patriot Act: Yes

Bank Bailout: Yes

(even if the nation was facing a crisis, this bailout was unacceptable, because it rescued the very financial institutions at fault, with no penalty, explicit protections from civil suits, concentrated financial power, etc.

as far as Holder goes, it seems to show that Obama is as crooked as the next Clinton)


Libya intervention: Yes , leading to Isis expansion and possibly getting oil fields


On what issue has she made the correct decision?

jk
04-27-16, 09:13 AM
woodsman, your condescension speaks ill of you. you sound bitter and disappointed, and i'm not convinced that it's disappointed with bpr.

i didn't bother going to polls yesterday; the symbolism wasn't worth the trip to me. if i'd gone i would have pulled the lever for bernie but without any thought that he would get the party's nomination- ain't gonna happen. look at the delegates. look at the VOTES. the democratic party has relied on a coalition of educated liberals, union-type workers and minorities. bernie pulls the first of those groups, maybe some of the 2nd, but a lot of the 2nd are crossing over to trump, and it's clear that bernie pulls virtually nothing from the 3rd of those groups. there's a reason that during the primaries hillary has garnered millions more votes than bernie.

at this point bernie might make a bit of impact on the party's platform, but no one pays attention to that anyway. his biggest contribution will be if he can muster the same energy from his supporters to get them to the polls to defeat donald trump. mostly because of the supreme court imo. i suppose bernie could make his price being appointed secty of the treasury, or at least head of the consumer financial protection agency eliz warren set up. treasury would be a hoot, i don't see it happening.

Woodsman
04-27-16, 09:54 AM
woodsman, your condescension speaks ill of you. you sound bitter and disappointed, and i'm not convinced that it's disappointed with bpr.

i didn't bother going to polls yesterday; the symbolism wasn't worth the trip to me. if i'd gone i would have pulled the lever for bernie but without any thought that he would get the party's nomination- ain't gonna happen. look at the delegates. look at the VOTES. the democratic party has relied on a coalition of educated liberals, union-type workers and minorities. bernie pulls the first of those groups, maybe some of the 2nd, but a lot of the 2nd are crossing over to trump, and it's clear that bernie pulls virtually nothing from the 3rd of those groups. there's a reason that during the primaries hillary has garnered millions more votes than bernie.

at this point bernie might make a bit of impact on the party's platform, but no one pays attention to that anyway. his biggest contribution will be if he can muster the same energy from his supporters to get them to the polls to defeat donald trump. mostly because of the supreme court imo. i suppose bernie could make his price being appointed secty of the treasury, or at least head of the consumer financial protection agency eliz warren set up. treasury would be a hoot, i don't see it happening.

So much pearl clutching.

The dissappointment is not with folks like bpr. She made her choice based on personal reasons of social affinities and that represents a longstanding pattern of voting that is utterly unremarkable.

But after reading your post, I find myself rather dissappointed in folks like you. Their sophistication and ennui will be the end of us.

jk
04-27-16, 12:02 PM
So much pearl clutching.

The dissappointment is not with folks like bpr. She made her choice based on personal reasons of social affinities and that represents a longstanding pattern of voting that is utterly unremarkable.

But after reading your post, I find myself rather dissappointed in folks like you. Their sophistication and ennui will be the end of us.
then woodsman, you tell me, what is to be done?

Woodsman
04-27-16, 03:54 PM
then woodsman, you tell me, what is to be done?

Ufck if I know.

Tell you one thing, though. If the Kochs and Kagans of the world support her and hate Trump, you can call me a Trumpeter starting the day the Democratic Party nominates HRC as its 2016 candidate. You'll never see a more enthusiastic Trump supporter; trust me.

santafe2
04-27-16, 04:13 PM
Ufck if I know.

Tell you one thing, though. If the Kochs and Kagans of the world support her and hate Trump, you can call me a Trumpeter starting the day the Democratic Party nominates HRC as its 2016 candidate. You'll never see a more enthusiastic Trump supporter; trust me.

Comedians everywhere thank you. Best 4 years ever! Possibly we can look forward to a Kardashian on the Supreme Court.

Woodsman
04-27-16, 04:17 PM
Comedians everywhere thank you. Best 4 years ever! Possibly we can look forward to a Kardashian on the Supreme Court.

I'd put Kimmie up against Clarence any day. Her T&A would distract his fine legal mind in a way Anita Hill never could.

jk
04-27-16, 05:09 PM
Ufck if I know.

Tell you one thing, though. If the Kochs and Kagans of the world support her and hate Trump, you can call me a Trumpeter starting the day the Democratic Party nominates HRC as its 2016 candidate. You'll never see a more enthusiastic Trump supporter; trust me.
:) i'll hold you to that, woody!

Woodsman
04-27-16, 07:38 PM
:) i'll hold you to that, woody!

You think I'm kidding. I'm not kidding. All the right people hate Trump and admire Clinton. Cheney (https://www.yahoo.com/news/cheney-us-different-hillary-clinton-president-153817016.html?ref=gs), Kissinger (http://http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/hillary-clinton-kissinger-vacation-dominican-republic-de-la-renta), Max Boot (http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11141308/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-max-boot), Caitlin Jenner (http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2016/03/14/conservative-caitlyn-jenner-tweets-clinton-support/81789452/). If they can zig as easy as that, you just watch me zag this summer.

And whatever electoral outcome puts the flame to the GOP and burns to ash this diseased zombie monster subsisting on the corpses (http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2009/09/like-virgin.html) of 9/11 victims, well that has my unqualified and unconditional support.

jk
04-27-16, 07:43 PM
You think I'm kidding. I'm not kidding. All the right people hate Trump and admire Clinton. Cheney (https://www.yahoo.com/news/cheney-us-different-hillary-clinton-president-153817016.html?ref=gs), Kissinger (http://http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/hillary-clinton-kissinger-vacation-dominican-republic-de-la-renta), Max Boot (http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11141308/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-max-boot), Caitlin Jenner (http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2016/03/14/conservative-caitlyn-jenner-tweets-clinton-support/81789452/). If they can zig as easy as that, you just watch me zag this summer.

And whatever electoral outcome puts the flame to the GOP and burns to ash this diseased zombie monster subsisting on the corpses (http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2009/09/like-virgin.html) of 9/11 victims, well that has my unqualified and unconditional support.
i did not think you were kidding. i'm torn myself. i keep getting hung up on the supreme court.


edit- i realize that i'm being delusional to think that my stance on this matters.

shiny!
04-27-16, 09:07 PM
Ufck if I know.

Tell you one thing, though. If the Kochs and Kagans of the world support her and hate Trump, you can call me a Trumpeter starting the day the Democratic Party nominates HRC as its 2016 candidate. You'll never see a more enthusiastic Trump supporter; trust me.

Woody, you're missing the best reason to vote for Hillary:

There's a very good chance that the wheels are gonna come off in 2017 or 2018. Whomever is president at the time will get blamed for the crash and become the most hated, reviled president in American History. Let it happen to Hillary, not to Sanders.

santafe2
04-27-16, 11:58 PM
Woody, you're missing the best reason to vote for Hillary:

There's a very good chance that the wheels are gonna come off in 2017 or 2018. Whomever is president at the time will get blamed for the crash and become the most hated, reviled president in American History. Let it happen to Hillary, not to Sanders.

As far as the November election goes, I believe the die is cast. There's a slim chance either Clinton or Trump will not be running but as Sanders said today, the path to victory for him is "very narrow". Like Trump, no one gave Sanders any chance of mounting a serious run for the presidency and both have proven conventional wisdom incorrect. And both ran primaries without taking dark money.

That said, we have a choice between only two people and I will choose HRC in November. The Democratic platform will be partly shaped by Sanders. His strong run this spring and his political savvy will not allow them to ignore his issues or his massive millennial following. He's now an official member of the Warren wing of the Democratic party.

I think Sanders will work hard this summer and fall, not so much for Clinton but for the down ticket races. Democrats have a good chance to retake the Senate with a good voter turnout and with a Democrat in the White House, reform the Supreme Court. It's not crazy to think that the family who has benefited most from Wall Street will take down Wall Street to ensure they're remembered fondly.

Sanders was the first volley, not our best last hope. For anyone thinking the end is coming soon it's good to remember that the end can only come once and faced with it, everyone will work much more diligently to keep it from happening.

It could have been much worse. It could have been HRC against the lizard king, Cruz. If that were the case, we'd get nothing from the Clintons because they'd know we were just lucky to get their version of awful instead of Sharia Ted. Running against Trump she will understand that the Clintons better get real or the Clintons will never matter.

There have been some very ugly elections in the US but none of us has ever experienced a nasty election like the one we're about to experience. We'll get a chastised politician or an old Justin Bieber crashing his nuke powered Ferrari into other countries. As I said, I'll vote for HRC.

jk
04-28-16, 09:56 AM
well said, santafe. i wish i shared your optimism.

Woodsman
04-28-16, 10:23 AM
well said, santafe. i wish i shared your optimism.

I can't agree. I don't see a Clinton controlled Democratic Party giving Bernie and his supporters the time of day. They'll stiff arm them the first chance they get, starting at the convention, with an overt ufck you gesture designed to show them their choices:

a. back of the line
b. the door

I think Democrat apparatchiks work under the assumption that a very large number of supporters of Bernie Sanders will never vote for Hillary Clinton. Most are not partisan Democrats or even claim an affinity to the Democratic Party, about which there is no shortage of things to despise.

The Democrat nomenklatura operate with the view that the Sanders people are in it to nominate Sanders only. They point to the fact that Sanders himself joined the party for the first time only last year, in his seventies.

As the Democrat elite see it, if Sanders were not on the ballot, a large share of his supports simply would not vote as they have no political reason to support Clinton. As such, they have no reason to mollify them beyond the convention.

santafe2
04-28-16, 11:44 AM
I can't agree. I don't see a Clinton controlled Democratic Party giving Bernie and his supporters the time of day. They'll stiff arm them the first chance they get, starting at the convention, with an overt ufck you gesture designed to show them their choices:

a. back of the line
b. the door

I think Democrat apparatchiks work under the assumption that a very large number of supporters of Bernie Sanders will never vote for Hillary Clinton. Most are not partisan Democrats or even claim an affinity to the Democratic Party, about which there is no shortage of things to despise.

The Democrat nomenklatura operate with the view that the Sanders people are in it to nominate Sanders only. They point to the fact that Sanders himself joined the party for the first time only last year, in his seventies.

As the Democrat elite see it, if Sanders were not on the ballot, a large share of his supports simply would not vote as they have no political reason to support Clinton. As such, they have no reason to mollify them beyond the convention.

I hope you're incorrect Woodsman.

jk
04-28-16, 12:36 PM
my impression is that sanders' support has been strongest among 2 groups [please correct me if i'm wrong]: liberal enclaves like college towns, and the young. the latter have historically been low turnout, and will likely relapse to that condition. the former will likely fall in line to oppose trump. this analysis is more consistent with woodsman's than santafe's.

DSpencer
04-28-16, 03:25 PM
Why Did I Vote Hillary?
1. Full disclosure: I've met her. And when the second-most powerful woman (arguably, next to Angela Merkel, IMO) in the world smiles at you, says, "You must be ____. I love your father," my knees get weak and I forget how angry I am that Eric Holder just got his job back at the lobbying firm where he can represent the banks he didn't prosecute. It happened. And I spent nearly an hour with her, talking about our economy, the rust belt, and football (yes, football). I just couldn't go there.


I'm trying to be polite, but wow. Your knees get weak? Chris Matthews, is that you?

I totally get how you would refrain from confronting her face to face about political corruption. I myself have been in the room with Jamie Dimon and resisted the urge to flip my table, throw my drink and scream obscenities. But you know that you aren't required to vote at all right? Just because you shoot the breeze about football doesn't mean you have to actually vote for her to be the President of the United States.

It's like the "Obama is my homeboy" situation all over again. Sure if I'd met him before knowing anything about him we could have shared a joint, shot some hoops and it would have been a swell time, but what's that have to do with being President? I just don't get why people think that if they meet a candidate in person who doesn't spit in their face that suddenly that person is qualified to be the President.

If you want to vote for a rich, old, white woman who smiles a lot and talks nice, but is also a known felon, why not just vote for Martha Stewart?

davidstvz
04-28-16, 04:08 PM
My first choice was Sanders, but a Facebook friend's rigorous analysis convinced me months ago that he had no shot of actually winning despite doing relatively well considering. Call me crazy, but I've been on the Trump train since then. I'm a little worried that Trump will cause the wheels to fall off, but only sooner rather than later. If it's going to happen, let's get it over with. As for Clinton, I wouldn't vote for her just on general principle just as I wouldn't have voted for Jeb! I'm sick of dynasties.

Woodsman
04-29-16, 11:19 AM
... Call me crazy, but I've been on the Trump train since then. I'm a little worried that Trump will cause the wheels to fall off, but only sooner rather than later. If it's going to happen, let's get it over with. As for Clinton, I wouldn't vote for her just on general principle just as I wouldn't have voted for Jeb! I'm sick of dynasties.

Crazy like a fox. Wouldn't it be a kick in the ass if The Donald actually did the obvious thing - which is the only thing he knows how to do, btw - and build baby build. Build a wall, and roads, bridges, dams, and every manner of infrastructure, doing what Sanders wants to do but likely never could. By spending gobs of dollars to goose aggregate demand and pull us out of deflationary depression, hell put a big fat "T" on every one if you'd like, he'd secure the old "Reagan Democrat" block so firmly he could build a dynasty of his own.

And wouldn't this be a nice sight every day as Fox News (or whatever Trump-leaning org that replaces it) covers the daily 2025 calendar of President Ivanka Trump-Kushner:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Ivanka_Trump_2009_%28b%29.jpg/330px-Ivanka_Trump_2009_%28b%29.jpg

Rump Treasury Secretary Carl Icahn seems to have it right:




Additionally, worrying about a deficit when there is no significant inflation and the dollar remains the global reserve currency is not a smart way to govern, Icahn said, adding that "a country is not a company."

While a company would go bankrupt if it owed too much money, the same could not be said of the United States anytime soon, Icahn explained, reiterating that he can't "understand this obsession" that many Republican politicians have with the deficit.

"They keep saying we owe all this money to China, but we're really not going to pay it back ever in a normal way," Icahn said. "So China decides 'I want my money back.' OK, well how do you want it back? You want dollar bills, you want Treasurys, what do you want?"

That said, Icahn cautioned that he was not advocating for the government to "go crazy and borrow money and have money floating around and have rampant inflation."

"Everything has equilibrium, everything has a middle ground, and we are so obsessed with that deficit," Icahn said. "And I never thought I'd agree completely with guys like (economist Paul) Krugman, but in this sense he's sort of right: I mean, you absolutely need fiscal stimulus in this economy."

Despite those comments disparaging one of the key arguments of many Republican politicians, Icahn had come out in support of the party's presidential front-runner.

Of fellow billionaire Trump, Icahn said the "right-wing establishment" doesn't like him in part because he's a pragmatist.

"He's going to do for this economy what should be done," Icahn said...

Icahn: Republicans don’t understand economics and it’s killing the country (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/28/icahn-republicans-dont-understand-economics-and-its-killing-the-country.html)

jk
04-29-16, 11:27 AM
the right wing pols can dismiss the likes of krugman, but given that they worship at the altar of mammon, it will be hard for them to say they know better than self-made billionaire icahn.

and trump has talked about our "disgusting" infrastructure. only a republican can drive a huge infrastructure spend, just as it took nixon to open up relations with china.

Woodsman
04-29-16, 11:53 AM
... only a republican can drive a huge infrastructure spend, just as it took nixon to open up relations with china.


And the Trumpet blows sweet music on foreign policy:


...One of the most interesting little communications in there was him basically saying "people who supported the Iraq War will not have jobs in my administration." He's made a pretty clear declaration: Neoconservatives, don't come crawling to me. I thought that was fascinating because normally what [candidates] want is [for] everyone to clamor onto the bandwagon. He clearly said "don't bother."

...I wouldn't classify [Trump] as one, but nevertheless, for anyone out there who had doubts about Iraq, finally there's a [candidate] who recognizes that some of these [interventions] don't work out well.

There are some [Republicans] that I can imagine moving his way—the kinds of people who are hawkish and tough, but [who]don't like nation building. The Republican Party is growing more protectionist, so those folks are out there. A lot of those people could very well show up and say,"I don't like what he said about economics, or this-or-that, but I can be for somebody who's tough and pro-American but not likely to get us into a bunch of goofy wars in the Middle East."

You don't have to be a Tea Partier or a libertarian to see that as a positive thing. There are folks who might find that an attractive option.

We Asked an Expert What We Actually Know About Donald Trump's Foreign Policy (http://www.vice.com/read/a-foreign-policy-expert-told-us-trump-actually-might-have-some-foreign-policy-ideas)

Then there's this:




...Donald Trump slammed NATO for being “obsolete.” This week, as he swept closer to the GOP nomination, he softened that to “outdated” but repeated his call for changes — including making allies pay more. Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders similarly has argued that the United States should scale back its NATO commitments.

These ideas have drawn ferocious criticism from the defense and foreign policy establishments, including the Pentagon and former secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Victor Davis Hanson, a historian at the Hoover Institute, acknowledged the salience of Trump’s argument but then backflipped to argue for the organization’s continued relevance anyway: “A powerful Russia will always have to be watched. A dynamic and headstrong Germany will always have to be integrated into some sort of military alliance. And the United States will always have a natural self-interest in pre-emptively keeping kindred Europeans from killing each other.”

Yet there are good reasons to take Trump's and Sanders' arguments seriously. On one level, NATO really is obsolete. It was established in 1949 to ensure the collective defense of Western Europe against the threat of a Soviet invasion. At the time, this did not seem like a particularly remote possibility.

USA Today: Trump isn't always wrong on foreign policy (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/28/trump-sanders-nato-obsolete-column/83654614/)


And as gobsmacking a notion as it is, the Nobel Peace Prize could be in the offering if The Donald manages to restore normalcy with Russia:


Moscow (CNN)After Donald Trump gave a much-anticipated foreign policy speech Wednesday, some of the most glowing reviews that he received were from a place that doesn't often see eye-to-eye with American politicians.

Trump's speech was more than well-received in Russia. In Moscow's Red Square, passersby speaking to CNN praised the New York tycoon. And Russian politicians from President Vladimir Putin on down have been quoted saying favorable things about the GOP presidential front-runner.

Putin recently called Trump "a brighter person, talented without a doubt." Trump returned the compliment saying: "I like him because he called me a genius. He said Trump is the real leader."

And in his address in Washington Wednesday, the billionaire businessman expressed hope about the potential for improvement in American-Russian relations.

"I believe an easing of tensions and improved relations with Russia, from a position of strength only, is possible," Trump said, though he added that the United States should be willing to walk away from the negotiating table if Russia is too demanding...

Donald Trump's foreign policy speech earns praise in Russia (http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/28/politics/donald-trump-russia-putin/)

Meanwhile, the sensible and responsible set know exactly what to do:



After years of central banks propping up the financial system and easing the borrowing conditions of national governments, one analyst has predicted that the next big wave of cash flooding an economy could come from increased military spending.

"Simple idea, what if (the next round of quantitative easing) shows up in the form of defense spending? And, I think we are seeing that," Pippa Malmgren, the founder of consultancy DRPM, told CNBC Wednesday. Malmgren - who served on President George W Bush's National Economic Council as an adviser on financial market issues - said that NATO, China, the U.S. and Europe had all hiked the budgets for their military. Europe, she added, had done so because of "the perception of (an) increasing threat from Russia."

QE4 is coming...and it could fund the next Cold War: Analyst (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/27/qe4-is-comingand-it-could-fund-the-next-cold-war-analyst.html)

vt
04-29-16, 01:30 PM
Trump White House


http://besttimepass.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/donald-trump-white-house-.jpg

Woodsman
04-29-16, 02:27 PM
Trump White House

No way he's going to live in that dump on 1600 Pennsylvania. Turn it into a museum, I bet. Maybe let the missus play Jackie O and redecorate. Nothing out of the public purse, mind you. Charge admission to non-citizens and pay the difference out of petty cash.;]]

Gird your loins, friends. This is the new Trump White House (https://www.trumphotelcollection.com/washington-dc/).

https://www.trumphotelcollection.com/images/bg/trump-homepage-dc-1.jpg

santafe2
04-29-16, 06:17 PM
Gird your loins, friends. This is the new Trump White House (https://www.trumphotelcollection.com/washington-dc/).

Yup, know it well. We stay at the JWM just down the street a couple of blocks from the House of Trump and that old White House. The timing of the opening is well calculated but he just didn't use enough gold. Maybe he's planning to use real gold from Fort Knox. All Trump has to do is wind up the crazy wing of the Republican party with accusations that "There is no gold in Fort Knox!". I'm sure the shadow government will give him enough to gold leaf the whole place just so he'll focus on something else.

Of course, he has to get elected and that's going to be a good trick given his negatives. As Trevor Noah noted on the Daily Show, Trump has to play the racist douchebag card because we all have to play the cards we're dealt.

Woodsman
04-30-16, 06:44 AM
...Of course, he has to get elected and that's going to be a good trick given his negatives. As Trevor Noah noted on the Daily Show, Trump has to play the racist douchebag card because we all have to play the cards we're dealt.

Call me racist douchebag come the Democratic convention, then. I'll have to hold my nose and check my shoes periodically, like I imagine many Clinton supporters do. Anyway, haven't you noticed? It's hip to switch!

If these neocon GOP douchebags can switch to Clinton after decades of crapping on her, I can jump on the Trump crazy train with no problem.

It's just a ride.



The Next Act of the Neocons

Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton?

By JACOB HEILBRUNNJULY 5, 2014
Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0&mtrref=undefined&assetType=opinion#story-continues-1)Share This Page

Share
Tweet
Email
More
Save





Photohttps://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/07/06/sunday-review/06HEILBRUN/06HEILBRUN-master1050-v2.jpg

Neocons like the historian Robert Kagan may be connecting with Hillary Clinton to try to regain influence in foreign policy.CreditLeft, Stephanie Sinclair/VII via Corbis; right, Colin McPherson/Corbis

WASHINGTON — AFTER nearly a decade in the political wilderness, the neoconservative movement is back, using the turmoil in Iraq and Ukraine to claim that it is President Obama, not the movement’s interventionist foreign policy that dominated early George W. Bush-era Washington, that bears responsibility for the current round of global crises.

Even as they castigate Mr. Obama, the neocons may be preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver’s seat of American foreign policy.

To be sure, the careers and reputations of the older generation of neocons — Paul D. Wolfowitz, L. Paul Bremer III, Douglas J. Feith, Richard N. Perle — are permanently buried in the sands of Iraq. And not all of them are eager to switch parties: In April, William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, said that as president Mrs. Clinton would “be a dutiful chaperone of further American decline.”

But others appear to envisage a different direction — one that might allow them to restore the neocon brand, at a time when their erstwhile home in the Republican Party is turning away from its traditional interventionist foreign policy.

It’s not as outlandish as it may sound. Consider the historian Robert Kagan, the author of a recent,roundly praised article (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117859/allure-normalcy-what-america-still-owes-world) in The New Republic that amounted to a neo-neocon manifesto. He has not only avoided the vitriolic tone that has afflicted some of his intellectual brethren but also co-founded an influential bipartisan advisory group during Mrs. Clinton’s time at the State Department.

Mr. Kagan has also been careful to avoid landing at standard-issue neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute; instead, he’s a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, that citadel of liberalism headed by Strobe Talbott, who was deputy secretary of state under President Bill Clinton and is considered a strong candidate to become secretary of state in a new Democratic administration. (Mr. Talbott called the Kagan article “magisterial,” in what amounts to a public baptism into the liberal establishment.)

Perhaps most significantly, Mr. Kagan and others have insisted on maintaining the link between modern neoconservatism and its roots in muscular Cold War liberalism. Among other things, he has frequently praised Harry S. Truman’s secretary of state, Dean Acheson, drawing a line from him straight to the neocons’ favorite president: “It was not Eisenhower or Kennedy or Nixon but Reagan whose policies most resembled those of Acheson and Truman.”

Other neocons have followed Mr. Kagan’s careful centrism and respect for Mrs. Clinton. Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted in The New Republic (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116500/duty-memoirs-secretary-war-reviewed-max-boot) this year that “it is clear that in administration councils she was a principled voice for a strong stand on controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or the intervention in Libya.”

And the thing is, these neocons have a point. Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq war; supported sending arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf Hitler; wholeheartedly backs Israel; and stresses the importance of promoting democracy.

It’s easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton’s making room for the neocons in her administration. No one could charge her with being weak on national security with the likes of Robert Kagan on board.

Of course, the neocons’ latest change in tack is not just about intellectual affinity. Their longtime home, the Republican Party, where presidents and candidates from Reagan to Senator John McCain of Arizona supported large militaries and aggressive foreign policies, may well nominate for president Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has been beating an ever louder drum against American involvement abroad.

In response, Mark Salter, a former chief of staff to Senator McCain and a neocon fellow traveler, said that in the event of a Paul nomination, “Republican voters seriously concerned with national security would have no responsible recourse” but to support Mrs. Clinton for the presidency.

Still, Democratic liberal hawks, let alone the left, would have to swallow hard to accept any neocon conversion. Mrs. Clinton herself is already under fire for her foreign-policy views — the journalist Glenn Greenwald, among others, has condemned her as “like a neocon, practically.” And humanitarian interventionists like Samantha Power, the ambassador to the United Nations, who opposed the second Iraq war, recoil at the militaristic unilateralism of the neocons and their inveterate hostility to international institutions like the World Court.
But others in Mrs. Clinton’s orbit, like Michael A. McFaul, the former ambassador to Russia and now a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a neocon haven at Stanford, are much more in line with thinkers like Mr. Kagan and Mr. Boot, especially when it comes to issues like promoting democracy and opposing Iran.

Far from ending, then, the neocon odyssey is about to continue. In 1972, Robert L. Bartley, the editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal and a man who championed the early neocon stalwarts, shrewdly diagnosed the movement as representing “something of a swing group between the two major parties.” Despite the partisan battles of the early 2000s, it is remarkable how very little has changed.

Jacob Heilbrunn is the editor (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn) of the National Interest and the author (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/books/review/Noah-t.html) of “They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons.”

lektrode
04-30-16, 01:13 PM
Call me racist douchebag come the Democratic convention, then.

+1
oh... come to think of it, he/santa already has (on a rant n rave thread ;)



I'll have to hold my nose and check my shoes periodically, like I imagine many Clinton supporters do. Anyway, haven't you noticed? It's hip to switch!

If these neocon GOP douchebags can switch to Clinton after decades of crapping on her, I can jump on the Trump crazy train with no problem.

It's just a ride.

thats the most HILARIOUS part of the Anybody But Trump clownfest clusterf__k - when that bunch can twist themselves into pretzel shapes to justify their idiotlogical perspectives (same as the demorat-liberal PC/anti-freespeech gestapo manages to do every day)

and here's another newsflash you WONT be seeing on bloomyville et al anytime soon:

The Oligarchy Is Tottering - Trump Tramples The Neocons' "False Song Of Globalism" (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-29/oligarchy-tottering-trump-tramples-neocons-false-song-globalism)

jk
04-30-16, 05:24 PM
some interesting descriptions of the 2 political parties, taken from a book review (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/books/review/listen-liberal-and-the-limousine-liberal.html) dated tomorrow in the ny times.


Echoing the historian Lily Geismer, Frank argues that the Democratic Party — once “the Party of the People” — now caters to the interests of a “professional-managerial class” consisting of lawyers, doctors, professors, scientists, programmers, even investment bankers. These affluent city dwellers and suburbanites believe firmly in meritocracy and individual opportunity, but shun the kind of social policies that once gave a real leg up to the working class. In the book, Frank points to the Democrats’ neglect of organized labor and support for Nafta as examples of this sensibility, in which “you get what you deserve, and what you deserve is defined by how you did in school.” In more recent columns, he has linked this neglect to the rise of a figure like Sanders, who says forthrightly what the party leadership might prefer to obscure: Current approaches aren’t working — and unless something dramatic happens, Americans are heading for a society in which a tiny elite controls most of the wealth, *resources and decision-making power.

The problem, in Frank’s view, is not simply that mainstream Democrats have failed to address growing inequality. Instead, he suggests something more sinister: Today’s leading Democrats actually don’t want to reduce inequality because they believe that inequality is the normal and righteous order of things. As proof, he points to the famously impolitic Larry Summers (http://www.itulip.com/audio/SummersJanszen110211.mp3), whose background as a former president of Harvard, former Treasury secretary and former chief economist of the World Bank embodies all that Frank abhors about modern Democrats. “One of the reasons that inequality has probably gone up in our society is that people are being treated closer to the way that they’re supposed to be treated,” Summers commented early in the Obama administration.

“Remember, as you let that last sentence slide slowly down your throat, that this was a Democrat saying this,” Frank writes. From this mind-set stems everything that the Democrats have done to betray the masses, from Bill Clinton’s crime bill and welfare reform policies to Obama’s failure to rein in Wall Street, according to Frank. No surprise, under the circumstances, that the working class might look elsewhere for satisfying political options.


and


Fraser agrees with Frank that the Democratic Party can no longer reasonably claim to be the party of the working class or the “little man.” Instead, he argues, the Republican and Democratic parties now represent two different elite constituencies, each with its own culture and interests and modes of thought. Fraser describes today’s Republicans as the party of “family capitalism,” encompassing everyone from the mom-and-pop business owner on up to “entrepreneurial maestros” such as the Koch brothers, Linda McMahon and Donald Trump. The Democrats, by contrast, represent the managerial world spawned by modernity, including the big universities and government bureaucracies as well as “techno frontiersmen” like Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates. These are two different ways of relating to the world — one cosmopolitan and interconnected, the other patriarchal and hierarchical. Neither one, however, offers much to working-class voters.

lektrode
04-30-16, 06:19 PM
“Remember, as you let that last sentence slide slowly down your throat, that this was a Democrat saying this,” Frank writes. From this mind-set stems everything that the Democrats have done to betray the masses, from Bill Clinton’s crime bill and welfare reform policies to Obama’s failure to rein in Wall Street, according to Frank. No surprise, under the circumstances, that the working class might look elsewhere for satisfying political options.
..........
Fraser agrees with Frank that the Democratic Party can no longer reasonably claim to be the party of the working class or the “little man.” Instead, he argues, the Republican and Democratic parties now represent two different elite constituencies, each with its own culture and interests and modes of thought. Fraser describes today’s Republicans as the party of “family capitalism,” encompassing everyone from the mom-and-pop business owner on up to “entrepreneurial maestros” such as the Koch brothers, Linda McMahon and Donald Trump. The Democrats, by contrast, represent the managerial world spawned by modernity, including the big universities and government bureaucracies as well as “techno frontiersmen” like Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates. These are two different ways of relating to the world — one cosmopolitan and interconnected, the other patriarchal and hierarchical. Neither one, however, offers much to working-class voters.


+1

and i still maintain that its been the demorats that are THE BIGGEST TRAITORS to the middle/working classes.

look, its been known for-evah that the repubs represent business interests - but, thanks to the LAMESTREAM MEDIA - a certain % of the electorate has been led to vote for whomever talks the most about the latest knee-jerk activist cause du jour du celebre
(take yer pick: the right to choose, the right of 'marriage', gun 'control', 'free education', 'save the whales, to climate 'change', to .gov-paid gender-change for inmates, fer chrisakes - and/or its 'for the children' or whatever 'victim' industrial-complex seems to get the most media attention this week!)

with team demorats, such as hitlery - twisting their heads 360deg around on their shoulders (ala linda blair in the exorcist) depending on where/who they're talking to - and giving away the treasury to buy the votes of another 1% sliver of the electorate (such as obozo has offered just recently, for the 400thousand debt serfs with useless degrees, that THEIR POLICIES and politix have created)

santafe2
05-01-16, 01:26 AM
Call me racist douchebag come the Democratic convention, then. I'll have to hold my nose and check my shoes periodically, like I imagine many Clinton supporters do. Anyway, haven't you noticed? It's hip to switch!

If these neocon GOP douchebags can switch to Clinton after decades of crapping on her, I can jump on the Trump crazy train with no problem. It's just a ride.

I find it interesting that this election is making such strange bedfellows as you and lek. You both obviously despise her. I like Bernie but I won't have any problem voting for HRC. You should check your +1s before you get too excited about your position and jump on the Trump crazy train, it's the KKK with an MSM microphone. I don't think you should compare yourself to GOP douchebags.

Woodsman
05-01-16, 07:30 AM
I find it interesting that this election is making such strange bedfellows as you and lek. You both obviously despise her. I like Bernie but I won't have any problem voting for HRC. You should check your +1s before you get too excited about your position and jump on the Trump crazy train, it's the KKK with an MSM microphone. I don't think you should compare yourself to GOP douchebags.

Lek and I are far from the strangest political bedfellows of this election, although housekeeping hasn't yet even made it in for the turnover service, so don't throw us in bed together just yet.

That said, I think our major malfunction - if you don't mind me putting words in your mouth, Lektrode - is that we're too damn old and have seen too damn much of HillBill and the GOP to make the fine-combed parsing the good young people seem to do so effortlessly. I'm not at all sure I'd characterize it as excitement, although it might account for the persistent feeling of nausea.

I've watched every god-awful metric of social and political decline under Democratic administrations led by so called-liberals like the Clintons and under "mainstream" Republicans like the Bush dynasty. I've seen KKK with an MSM microphone for the last 30+ years, some years fast and brutal with no reach around, some years gentle and generous, but the direction and trajectory has not changed since at least the Carter administration. And nothing will do a better job of reducing racial tensions and bringing people together in common cause than the wide and deep economic recovery we will experience once we implement TECI, rebuild the physical infrastructure, and all those other things necessary to pull us out of this deflationary spiral. Only Sanders and Trump are talking about it.

If one has any feeling for the poor and weak and excluded, can you imagine how many of those people - fellow citizens, immigrants and natural born - will die in Hillary's World War III? For chrissakes, they're openly talking about putting Kagan in her administration. Again, it's only Trump and Sanders who are speaking the unspeakable - normal relations with Russia, a neocon housecleaning (with trials on the horizon, one hopes), and an end to endless war.

jk
05-01-16, 10:24 AM
I've seen KKK with an MSM microphone for the last 30+ years, some years fast and brutal with no reach around, some years gentle and generous, but the direction and trajectory has not changed since at least the Carter administration. .
i think you have to go back at least as far as nixon, whose southern strategy switched the south from dixiecrat to republican. of course that was in great part a reaction to lbj's civil rights act, the administration prior to nixon's. i am drawn to your position woodsman, but i have trouble with the company trumps keeps, or at least fails to renounce - the racists and haters- and i also think about the supreme court. still, i think you are right - a president trump could get a republican legislature to pass a "make america great again infrastructure act." i don't think hrc could pass anything like it.

Woodsman
05-01-16, 10:55 AM
i think you have to go back at least as far as nixon, whose southern strategy switched the south from dixiecrat to republican. of course that was in great part a reaction to lbj's civil rights act, the administration prior to nixon's. i am drawn to your position woodsman, but i have trouble with the company trumps keeps, or at least fails to renounce - the racists and haters- and i also think about the supreme court. still, i think you are right - a president trump could get a republican legislature to pass a "make america great again infrastructure act." i don't think hrc could pass anything like it.

Agree re timeline. Coffee was still brewing.

Milton Kuo
05-01-16, 10:09 PM
i am drawn to your position woodsman, but i have trouble with the company trumps keeps, or at least fails to renounce - the racists and haters- and i also think about the supreme court. still, i think you are right - a president trump could get a republican legislature to pass a "make america great again infrastructure act." i don't think hrc could pass anything like it.

I don't understand this fixation with Trump and the implication that he somehow supports the Ku Klux Klan just because he does not denounce them and say that he does not want their votes. I think Trump is aware that this is going to be a very close election and it would be foolish to tell a certain bloc of people--who, if you believe the so-called liberals, comprise a substantial proportion of the South--that you don't want their votes.

As we all know, Romney privately stated that he did not need the votes of the 47% of the population that does not pay taxes and that statement was subsequently leaked. I'm sure Romney deeply regretted alienating those people in the end because, in my opinion, Obama in 2012 was highly beatable. All Romney had to do was position himself as a candidate with good management/governance experience and attack Obama's failure to prosecute the criminals responsible for the AFC although, who knows, maybe Romney wanted to keep Wall Street out of prison, too. Had he not said that stupid thing, Romney may have still lost but I don't think it would have been the wipeout that actually occurred.

Hillary Clinton is clearing pandering to minorities with false promises and seems to have a lot of their support. If Clinton does become the Democratic nominee for president and Trump the Republican nominee, it's fair to assume that a lot of women will vote for Clinton out of misguided identity politics. Whatever percentage of the population is racist and/or a member of the KKK will probably not vote for Clinton. If Trump were to tell that group of people that he doesn't want their votes, they'll stay home and not vote at all.

Can Trump take such a risk? Is it wise to take such a risk? My opinion is of course "No" and I suspect this is Trump's thinking, too.

That said, if Bernie Sanders loses to Hillary Clinton, it might make for an interesting election if Trump selected Sanders as his vice president candidate. A non-establishment ticket of Trump-Sanders against the increasingly blatantly corrupt political machine.

santafe2
05-02-16, 01:19 AM
i think you have to go back at least as far as nixon, whose southern strategy switched the south from dixiecrat to republican. of course that was in great part a reaction to lbj's civil rights act, the administration prior to nixon's. i am drawn to your position woodsman, but i have trouble with the company trumps keeps, or at least fails to renounce - the racists and haters- and i also think about the supreme court. still, i think you are right - a president trump could get a republican legislature to pass a "make America great again infrastructure act." i don't think hrc could pass anything like it.

I would suggest that The Donald is as crazy Jack D. Ripper. The last non fictional character to suggest using nukes lost any chance of reaching the presidency after he offered a shortcut for ending the Vietnam war.


Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona), running for the Republican Party nomination in the upcoming presidential election, gives an interview in which he discusses the use of low-yield atomic bombs in North Vietnam to defoliate forests and destroy bridges, roads, and railroad lines bringing supplies from communist China. During the storm of criticism that followed, Goldwater tried to back away from these drastic actions, claiming that he did not mean to advocate the use of atomic bombs but was “repeating a suggestion made by competent military people.” Democrats painted Goldwater as a warmonger who was overly eager to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam. Though he won his party’s nomination, Goldwater was never able to shake his image as an extremist in Vietnam policies. This image was a key factor in his crushing defeat by opponent Lyndon B. Johnson, who took about 61 percent of the vote to Goldwater’s 39 percent.

The Donald can't shut-up about it.


Donald Trump refused to rule out using nuclear weapons in Europe during a town hall in Wisconsin on Wednesday.

"Look, nuclear should be off the table, but would there a time when it could be used? Possibly," Trump said.

Here's another fan. A real charmer with both math and anger issues who's Native American name is Throws-chairs-at-kids


At a Trump rally in Indiana on Thursday, Knight raised some eyebrows (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bobby-knight-trump-drop-bomb) when he compared the two men. "Harry Truman, with what he did in dropping and having the guts to drop the bomb in 1944 saved, saved billions of American lives," Knight said, with Trump smiling next to him. "And that's what Harry Truman did. And he became one of the three great presidents of the United States. And here's a man who would do the same thing, because he's going to become one of the four great presidents of the United States."

And articulating his deep understanding of the nuclear issue...


"I think for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me".

And talking about the Middle East...


“I will be the last to use it. I will not be a happy trigger like some people might be. I will be the last,” he said. “But I will never, ever rule it out.”

And proliferation...really? The Saudis?


This past week, President Barack Obama joined a group of major world leaders in Washington, D.C., for a Nuclear Security Summit. At the same time, Donald Trump said he has no objections to nuclear proliferation around the world.

“At some point we have to say, you know what, we’re better off if Japan protects itself against this maniac in North Korea,” Trump told Anderson Cooper at a CNN town hall on Tuesday. “We’re better off, frankly, if South Korea is going to start to protect itself.” As for Saudi Arabia getting a nuclear weapon? “Absolutely.”

It's awful that Trump is a racist blowhard but only the utterly uninformed and voters with a death wish will vote for him.

lektrode
05-02-16, 09:23 AM
...
...
..
It's awful that Trump is a racist blowhard but only the utterly uninformed and voters with a death wish will vote for him.

and only the utterly uninformed - or yet, better to say - only those utterly in denial about the facts of the 1990's - from nafta to the repeal of glass-steagall, to the policy + strategic FAILURES during the first 2 clinton terms - that directly led to osama's rise and the fall of the world trade center, the murdering of 3000+ Americans - to the elections of 2008&12 - with the resultant criminal takeover of the .gov by those who bankrolled both the clinton's rise to power, along with obozo and holder - who thru either sheer incompetence or flatout criminal intent - allowed the perps of the biggest economic wipeout in US History to ride off into the sunset with TRILLIONS IN PRINTED MONEY - while crowing about the BRIBES, or the so-called 'settlements' that were extracted vs NO JAIL TIME for the voluminously documented criminal activities (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/untouchables/) that has been IGNORED by their enablers within the LAMERSTREAM MEDIA - to their relocation to NY state, carpetbagging her way into the senate - essentially a QUID PRO QUO reward for their giving the lwr manhattan mob the keys to the US Treasury - to hitlery's self-aggrandizing FAILURES while sec of state - would even think of voting for round 2 of the clinton DISASTER

only the utterly self-deluded could rationalize her as being somehow 'better than trump'

vt
05-02-16, 10:49 AM
Is it any surprise of how voters are acting when 60% of them want to get rid of all in office?

Sanders is antiestablishment too. Bernie has 42% of the Democrat popular vote so far.

Trump has 39.7% and Lucifer (Cruz) has 27.1%; that's 66.8% of the Republican vote that is anti establishment.

The citizenry is very angry folks! Typically participation in Presidential elections is 58% to 62%. How many of the 38% who don't vote will be driven to Trump if he is the nominee? In this age of cell phone dominance can the polling actually work to assess who the public wants?

We may be facing an election with the two most disliked candidates in history. Nothing that happens will be a surprise. Reagan was trailing Carter at this point in the 1980 race, and we know how that turned out.

I don't want Trump but he may not be a sure loser. Every thing is far too volatile this year to predict anything.


And now there is this news:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/trump_41_clinton_39


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3bUicXNWz4

Woodsman
05-02-16, 02:37 PM
I would suggest that The Donald is as crazy Jack D. Ripper...It's awful that Trump is a racist blowhard but only the utterly uninformed and voters with a death wish will vote for him.

I respect that you've come to your support of Clinton for the best of reasons, santafe2. I don't agree with them, but I think your motives are positive and that you believe you are making the best of the available choices.

There's no criticism of The Donald I haven't uttered myself and nothing I've read or heard so far makes me change my opinion of the guy. I still think Sanders is the better candidate with the better plan and we'll see what the next round of primaries will do to his continuing viability as he drives forward to the convention.

I don't believe I have a death wish and I don't believe I'm particularly racist or bigoted. What support I'd give The Donald is conditional on what happens to Sanders and has nothing at all to do with his stated opinions about Mexican immigrants or his command of foreign policy beyond the grand sweep of his America First/No Neocons vision. I would support him on the basis of 1) denying HRC the presidency, 2) destroying the current Democratic and Republican parties, and 3) implementing a TECI/infrastructure rebuild to goose aggregate demand, increase wages and get us out of deflation.

We have a different opinion on how to orient ourselves to the present crisis. I think I can continue to make a left case for Trump and look forward to having you to test it as I go along. But you are going to have to do better than what you've offered so far in terms of a counter argument, sf2. I already know the guy is a bigot and a boor. You're going to have to offer more than what to my ears amounts to much the same dismissive and moralistic tropes (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/24/white-working-class-issues-free-trade-american-south)whites would play on black voters back in the bad old days.

In a sane electoral environment run for the benefit of choosing from among the best and wise, I'd never consider him. But if American politics must be a psycho circus, then I'm willing to roll the dice and make the orange haired-clown the ringmaster. God knows he can't be much worse than the clowns we've seen the past 30+ years.

And as I'll keep saying, the right people hate him.

BK
05-02-16, 05:43 PM
+1
OF course, the attempts to label everyone who is enraged by the allowance of illegal immigrants at a level not seen in decades as a xenophobe.

I've had the could fortune to work with many talent immigrants from Russia, India, Australia, and more. I am not a xenophobe and sadly lot of regular folks get impacted by this illegal immigration crisis.

While the damage that some of these undocumented visitors/immigrants piles up weekly:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2016/05/drunk_driver_asks_for_charge_in_fatal_crash_case_t o_be_dismissed
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/undocumented-man-pleads-not-guilty-in-death-of-san-francisco-woman/
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/oh-lake/undocumented-immigrant-convicted-in-lake-county-murder-and-rape-gets-life-plus-107-years-in-prison
http://www.ktvu.com/news/97949140-story
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/25/undocumented-teen-had-extensive-record/

santafe2
05-02-16, 09:05 PM
There's no criticism of The Donald I haven't uttered myself and nothing I've read or heard so far makes me change my opinion of the guy. I still think Sanders is the better candidate with the better plan and we'll see what the next round of primaries will do to his continuing viability as he drives forward to the convention.

I will be fine with either candidate. Of the two, I think Sanders has ideas more in line with our needs and is likely a better person, but I don't think he's the better candidate. Personal opinion of course. If you really like Sander's message of revolution you may enjoy the book: The American Revolution of 1800, Sisson. It describes America's second revolution when Jefferson's Democratic-Republican party took office and the Federalist party transitioned out of power. Jefferson also had some unsavory aspects to his life and he was "elected" by the House after tying with Aaron Burr...speaking of unsavory characters.

vt
05-17-16, 12:08 AM
https://i.imgflip.com/147wh2.jpg

santafe2
05-17-16, 01:35 AM
https://i.imgflip.com/147wh2.jpg

Yup, "socialists" don't get how the 1/100 of 1% require most of the money. People on the right with maths skills keep voting against themselves. Must be the smart ones.

vt
05-17-16, 08:38 AM
Yup, "socialists" don't get how the 1/100 of 1% require most of the money. People on the right with maths skills keep voting against themselves. Must be the smart ones.

What we have now doesn't work either. We need new solutions.

Woodsman
05-17-16, 08:41 AM
What we have now doesn't work either. We need new solutions.

Then why do you keep running the same old tropes?

vt
05-19-16, 11:16 AM
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/280453-liberal-media-turns-on-sanders

Woodsman
05-19-16, 11:25 AM
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/280453-liberal-media-turns-on-sanders

Ya think?

https://longchaps2.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/captain-obvious3.jpg

vt
05-19-16, 09:58 PM
Sorry dude but I don't think it was obvious that progressive publications would be so critical of Bernie:

"As the fallout from last weekend’s Nevada Democratic convention spreads, sharply critical pieces about the White House hopeful and his campaign have appeared in progressive outlets such as Mother Jones, Talking Points Memo and Daily Kos within the past 48 hours.
The Sanders campaign has also taken hits from progressive CNN contributor Sally Kohn, who endorsed the Vermont senator from the stage at a massive rally in New York City just before the Empire State’s April primary."

Did you actually read the article or just react to the headline?

Woodsman
05-21-16, 12:42 PM
Sorry dude but I don't think it was obvious that progressive publications would be so critical of Bernie:

"As the fallout from last weekend’s Nevada Democratic convention spreads, sharply critical pieces about the White House hopeful and his campaign have appeared in progressive outlets such as Mother Jones, Talking Points Memo and Daily Kos within the past 48 hours.
The Sanders campaign has also taken hits from progressive CNN contributor Sally Kohn, who endorsed the Vermont senator from the stage at a massive rally in New York City just before the Empire State’s April primary."

Did you actually read the article or just react to the headline?

No big deal, just politics. I've been paying way more attention to this than I had first intended, but the universe coughed up Bernie and Trump and I've been a hopeless case ever since.

I don't care what one thinks about the man and his political ideology, but to see a Jewish socialist from Brooklyn bring Mrs. Bill Clinton - the old Goldwater Gal herself - Hillary to a draw in Kentucky of all places is just remarkable to me. It's turning out to be a replay of '68 and Hillary is Hubert Humphrey, Sanders is Gene McCarthy, and Trump is Nixon. I wish I had called it, but all credit goes to Dick Morris. Of course, he knows the Clintons better than most:



"What may happen here is that if Sanders wins the first two primaries and then does well in the white primary states — not South Carolina, but the largely white ones — Sanders could beat her in all of those primaries," Morris said. "You could have a situation where she tries to win the nomination, steal it by getting the super delegates — all of whom believe that Sanders would be a disaster for the party."

He then told "The Steve Malzberg Show" that the scenario "could cause a backlash in the Democratic Party, very much like the Hubert Humphrey backlash that took place in 1968, when he didn't even enter a single primary and he was nominated anyway."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-primary-democrats/2015/12/30/id/707664/


It wasn't obvious to anyone but Dick but it's played out rather close to his outline. And what's been obvious to me since last fall maybe you just took a while to key in. Given the insane terror fugue of the media following Hillary's most recent drubbing in Kentucky and Oregon, it looks like they're late to the party as well. But really it's been this way since before Iowa. There Clinton - the candidate the NYT decreed in October 2015 as “the unrivaled leader in the Democratic contest” (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/24/us/politics/jeb-bush-cuts-costs-ben-carson-eclipses-donald-trump-in-iowa-and-gop-frets.html?_r=0) was taken down to a draw by a grey, otherwise invisible man the entire political world knew had no chance at all to win (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/bernie-sanders-2016-why-sanders-cant-win-213414). It wasn't supposed to be that way. Hillary was reported as the winner, of course, but at 49.9% to 49.6% it was a dead even tie. Had Martin O'Malley's phone tree broken down, the eight people who voted for him might had overslept and thrown the day to Sanders.

Anyway, that set the tone of the race and with a huge win in New Hampshire, Sanders upset the long planned and well scripted narrative of the Clinton Coronation. And while everybody was watching the Trump circus, Sanders showed the world how he would work around Clinton's many advantages and win. And it happened again in this last round. I think that's when the people you characterize as "leftists" and "progressives" were mobilized to put the skids on Bernie. But in the same way the media has experienced a psychotic embolism in the run up to the Trump ascendancy and obliterated their last shred of credibility in mobilizing to stop it, the so-called progressive caucuses are being similarly exposed. Pay close attention and you might see things that will make you re-calibrate your political and economic shorthand.

This week in the Paper of Record, for instance:


Senator Bernie Sanders is opening a two-month phase of his presidential campaign aimed at inflicting a heavy blow on Hillary Clinton in California….

Now I came up in politics and elections. If you've got pretensions of rising to some degree of political influence higher than say "Tracy Flick", then a political campaign is about advancing your candidate and giving people reasons - not necessarily rational ones - to vote for your guy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u3GAQgZpww

Nobody who is serious about winning starts a campaign for office with the goal of damaging or derailing an opponent. Campaigns like that exist, but they are spoilers and it's not unheard to later learn of collusion and similar corrupt practices were employed to torpedo an upstart or deliver payback for lapses in discipline. I suppose the next step is for the media to try and convince folks Bernie was a spoiler all along (that will be the balm HRC/DNC applies when she loses), but I think their powers of doublespeak and crimestop have run their course going with Trump.

So how to account for this claim by the paragon of Journalistic Ethics 101, the New York Times? Sure this sensational claim is supported with hard evidence of a "campaign aimed at inflicting a heavy blow on Hillary Clinton in California", right? Well, no, but that's the narrative you want people to accept; Bernie Sanders is a spoiler who wants to throw the race to Trump. Now you can't yet just make up quotes and events to support your thesis (unless you work in the Black Propaganda section), so what you do is go to the Sanders campaign and say to them something like "you guys are only in it to stick it to Hillary" where then the Sanders campaign says, no we believe the people want our candidate and we're in it all the way to win, or some similar bromide.


Tad Devine, a senior adviser to Mr. Sanders, said the campaign did not think its attacks would help Mr. Trump in the long run, but added that the senator’s team was “not thinking about” the possibility that they could help derail Mrs. Clinton from becoming the first woman elected president.

Then you go back to the newsroom and work with your editors to make the denial into the proof that your thesis is what has been happening all along.

http://fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/NYTHarmClinton.jpg (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/bernie-sanderss-campaign-accuses-head-of-dnc-of-favoritism.html?_r=0)

On top of that, you get the front-page above the fold to advance a false story of violence on the part of Senator Sanders, bolstering your other false narrative —aided by phantom chair-throwing incidents—that the Sanders campaign is a dangerous menace intent on inflicting a “heavy blow” on Clinton in California to “wrest the nomination from her,” despite the plain reality that she has not clinched the nomination under any calculus and that the race is far from over. That's the narrative, from the top to bottom:



CLINTON: I will be the nominee for my party, Chris. That is already done, in effect. There is no way that I won’t be.

CUOMO: There’s a Senator from Vermont who has a different take on that —

CLINTON: Well —

CUOMO: He says he’s going to fight to the end —

CLINTON: Yeah, it’s strange.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3be4ZTOMv4A



But what's genuinely strange is that Hillary and the New York Times seem flummoxed that Sanders, with his insistence on “amassing enough leverage to advance his agenda at the convention in July—or even wrest the nomination from her" is actually working the democratic process towards the goal of winning the election. They just don't understand why he won't accept her inevitability and quit all his winning.

What's stranger still is that by that statement, Hillary seems to be telling California Democrats not to bother voting because in her mind nothing California could possibly do in its primary could change the outcome of the Democratic race.
"That is already done...There is no way that I won’t be."

Bernie, on the other hand, is all about California. And it looks like that's been the case all along. Sanders is on pace to win as many as 18 of the final 24 state primaries and caucuses. While Clinton is fond of saying she won “nine of the last 12 contests” in 2008, she tied with Obama in the final ten state primaries and caucuses during the 2008 primaries, winning 8 and losing 15 of of the last 23 states. She's whistling past a graveyard she's walked by before and it scares her.

I wish I could say I had it figured out after Iowa, but it's clear now that was the guerrilla/asymmetric strategy on how Sanders gets to the nomination. Create an independent crowd-sourced small-donor base managed by technology and using social media and social networking as a force multiplier to fight for every goddamn vote, nurture victories into breakthroughs and starve failures all the way to California and the convention. It's deep, man.

In this way, Sanders diminishes Clinton's primary advantage - her lock on the so-called pledged delegates - and by a winning popular vote strategy highlights the contradictions (as a good Marxist or Neocon might say) between his grass-roots popular democracy and the lack of it in the commanding heights (as a good Leninist or Conservative might say) of the Democratic Party Nomenklatura. His electoral success has made it impossible for Clinton to win the primary with pledged delegates alone.

This means that to win the Democratic nomination, Hillary will have to rely on the loyalty of super-delegates who won’t vote for more than two months in Philadelphia on July 25th. As the DNC has repeatedly advised us all, super-delegates can and often do change their minds and are free to do so up until they actually vote this summer. And a win California will cause many of these super-delegates to switch their votes to Sanders in late July on the argument that he’s more electable than Clinton in the fall (what if the Feebs sense weakness and indict her).

Enough defections and Clinton will not, in fact, be the Democratic nominee. And should she enforce her discipline with too naked a power grab, who could blame the Sanders kids for staying home and cultivating their own gardens once they are shown to have no place in Hillary's party. As they focus building on their independent base and applying their future efforts at electing Sanders Democrats, HRC is denied the White House.

We'll see. Let's just say we're all Captain Obvious by now on account for the fact that there's there's no truth in Pravda and no news in Izvestia.

jk
05-21-16, 01:42 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rleUPHX8yfM

lektrode
05-21-16, 08:26 PM
best critical analysis eye've seen to date: woody's POV (and writing on this topic) + jk's vid as the kicker..

vt
05-22-16, 02:01 AM
Excellent points Woody.

Hillary has a recurring nightmare from "Night Of The Living Bern"

jk
05-22-16, 11:42 AM
the 1968 analogy sounds about right. humphrey got the nomination, and i think hrc will do the same. i have less faith than you do, woody, in the flexibility of the super delegates. i think either dem will lose to trump, but i wonder if it makes any difference to the undercard. the dems didn't do badly in '68 - they lost 5 seats in the senate but maintained their majority, and they lost only 5 seats in the house.

vt
06-16-16, 03:57 PM
The elites can be socialists as well as capitalists:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3640941/Super-rich-quaff-champagne-Venezuela-country-club-middle-classes-scavenge-food-rubbish-dumps-DOGS-starving.html

The people want to be rid of elites of all political facets.

Polish_Silver
06-17-16, 08:53 AM
The elites can be socialists as well as capitalists:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3640941/Super-rich-quaff-champagne-Venezuela-country-club-middle-classes-scavenge-food-rubbish-dumps-DOGS-starving.html

The people wants to be rid of elites of all political facets.


What is an "elite"?

thriftyandboringinohio
06-17-16, 10:28 AM
What is an "elite"?

A person who is wealthy and respected with whom I disagree.:D

Woodsman
06-17-16, 10:55 AM
A person who is wealthy and respected with whom I disagree.:D

Funny one, yet not too far from the mark. Thing is, when people speak of elites they usually forget the prefix "power." Otherwise, we could be talking about figure skaters or competitive bull wranglers.

But who reads C. Wright Mills these days.


The Power Elite (http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/users/f/felwell/www/Theorists/Essays/Mills2.htm) are the key people in the three major institutions of modern society: 1) Economy; 2) Government; and 3) Military. The bureaucracies of state, corporations, and military have become enlarged and centralized and are a means of power never before equaled in human history. These hierarchies of power are the key to understanding modern industrial societies.

http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/users/f/felwell/www/Theorists/Essays/Mills%20files/Power%20Elite.jpg (http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/users/f/felwell/www/Theorists/Essays/Mills2.htm)

Polish_Silver
06-17-16, 11:06 AM
Funny one, yet not too far from the mark. Thing is, when people speak of elites they usually forget the prefix "power." Otherwise, we could be talking about figure skaters or competitive bull wranglers.

But who reads C. Wright Mills these days.

WM, have your read the Mills book and did you think it was good?

I have to agree with the idea that bureaucracies are one of the biggest (if not the biggest) power centers in the modern
world, and they certainly inhabit larger corporations. Does Mills believe, as Kissinger and I do, that bureaucracies, whatever their stated purpose, tend to
serve the purposes of their own members?

Mills did not mention health care or finance, but they are covered by government and corporations.


There is some thinking that the Military has been becoming more bureaucratic in the last 50 years, or that the bureaucracy is more self serving than before.

Polish_Silver
06-17-16, 11:12 AM
A person who is wealthy and respected with whom I disagree.:D

Respect would not be part of my definition. Power or privilege would . Take the EU commission. No one even knows who is on it, so "respect" is out
the window. Power and privilege, they have.

dcarrigg
06-17-16, 12:13 PM
This sucker's over 100 years old now (http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/michels/polipart.pdf), but probably still as prescient as ever.

Woodsman
06-17-16, 01:54 PM
This sucker's over 100 years old now (http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/michels/polipart.pdf), but probably still as prescient as ever.


Iron law of oligarchy; democracy ever devolving to oligarchy. With outcomes such as ...

U.S. Abandons Case Against Countrywide's Mozilo (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-06-17/u-s-abandons-case-against-countrywide-s-mozilo)

Polish_Silver
06-17-16, 03:31 PM
This sucker's over 100 years old now (http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/michels/polipart.pdf), but probably still as prescient as ever.


That looks like a very interesting book. The problems he described were not present (or much smaller) in itinerant hunter gatherer
societies, where there was no generational transmission of property or privilege.

Woodsman
06-17-16, 04:03 PM
That looks like a very interesting book. The problems he described were not present (or much smaller) in itinerant hunter gatherer
societies, where there was no generational transmission of property or privilege.

There's a classic article to that point by Jared Diamond I know you'll appreciate:






Jared Diamond, "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race," Discover Magazine, May 1987, pp. 64-66.The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race

By Jared Diamond
University of California at Los Angeles Medical School

To science we owe dramatic changes in our smug self-image. Astronomy taught us that our earth isn't the center of the universe but merely one of billions of heavenly bodies. From biology we learned that we weren't specially created by God but evolved along with millions of other species. Now archaeology is demolishing another sacred belief: that human history over the past million years has been a long tale of progress. In particular, recent discoveries suggest that the adoption of agriculture, supposedly our most decisive step toward a better life, was in many ways a catastrophe from which we have never recovered. With agriculture came the gross social and sexual inequality, the disease and despotism, that curse our existence.At first, the evidence against this revisionist interpretation will strike twentieth century Americans as irrefutable. We're better off in almost every respect than people of the Middle Ages, who in turn had it easier than cavemen, who in turn were better off than apes. Just count our advantages. We enjoy the most abundant and varied foods, the best tools and material goods, some of the longest and healthiest lives, in history. Most of us are safe from starvation and predators. We get our energy from oil and machines, not from our sweat. What neo-Luddite among us would trade his life for that of a medieval peasant, a caveman, or an ape?
For most of our history we supported ourselves by hunting and gathering: we hunted wild animals and foraged for wild plants. It's a life that philosophers have traditionally regarded as nasty, brutish, and short. Since no food is grown and little is stored, there is (in this view) no respite from the struggle that starts anew each day to find wild foods and avoid starving. Our escape from this misery was facilitated only 10,000 years ago, when in different parts of the world people began to domesticate plants and animals. The agricultural revolution spread until today it's nearly universal and few tribes of hunter-gatherers survive.
From the progressivist perspective on which I was brought up, to ask "Why did almost all our hunter-gatherer ancestors adopt agriculture?" is silly. Of course they adopted it because agriculture is an efficient way to get more food for less work. Planted crops yield far more tons per acre than roots and berries. Just imagine a band of savages, exhausted from searching for nuts or chasing wild animals, suddenly grazing for the first time at a fruit-laden orchard or a pasture full of sheep. How many milliseconds do you think it would take them to appreciate the advantages of agriculture?
The progressivist party line sometimes even goes so far as to credit agriculture with the remarkable flowering of art that has taken place over the past few thousand years. Since crops can be stored, and since it takes less time to pick food from a garden than to find it in the wild, agriculture gave us free time that hunter-gatherers never had. Thus it was agriculture that enabled us to build the Parthenon and compose the B-minor Mass.
While the case for the progressivist view seems overwhelming, it's hard to prove. How do you show that the lives of people 10,000 years ago got better when they abandoned hunting and gathering for farming? Until recently, archaeologists had to resort to indirect tests, whose results (surprisingly) failed to support the progressivist view. Here's one example of an indirect test: Are twentieth century hunter-gatherers really worse off than farmers? Scattered throughout the world, several dozen groups of so-called primitive people, like the Kalahari bushmen, continue to support themselves that way. It turns out that these people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and work less hard than their farming neighbors. For instance, the average time devoted each week to obtaining food is only 12 to 19 hours for one group of Bushmen, 14 hours or less for the Hadza nomads of Tanzania. One Bushman, when asked why he hadn't emulated neighboring tribes by adopting agriculture, replied, "Why should we, when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?"
While farmers concentrate on high-carbohydrate crops like rice and potatoes, the mix of wild plants and animals in the diets of surviving hunter-gatherers provides more protein and a bettter balance of other nutrients. In one study, the Bushmen's average daily food intake (during a month when food was plentiful) was 2,140 calories and 93 grams of protein, considerably greater than the recommended daily allowance for people of their size. It's almost inconceivable that Bushmen, who eat 75 or so wild plants, could die of starvation the way hundreds of thousands of Irish farmers and their families did during the potato famine of the 1840s.
So the lives of at least the surviving hunter-gatherers aren't nasty and brutish, even though farmes have pushed them into some of the world's worst real estate. But modern hunter-gatherer societies that have rubbed shoulders with farming societies for thousands of years don't tell us about conditions before the agricultural revolution. The progressivist view is really making a claim about the distant past: that the lives of primitive people improved when they switched from gathering to farming. Archaeologists can date that switch by distinguishing remains of wild plants and animals from those of domesticated ones in prehistoric garbage dumps.
How can one deduce the health of the prehistoric garbage makers, and thereby directly test the progressivist view? That question has become answerable only in recent years, in part through the newly emerging techniques of paleopathology, the study of signs of disease in the remains of ancient peoples.
In some lucky situations, the paleopathologist has almost as much material to study as a pathologist today. For example, archaeologists in the Chilean deserts found well preserved mummies whose medical conditions at time of death could be determined by autopsy (Discover, October). And feces of long-dead Indians who lived in dry caves in Nevada remain sufficiently well preserved to be examined for hookworm and other parasites.
Usually the only human remains available for study are skeletons, but they permit a surprising number of deductions. To begin with, a skeleton reveals its owner's sex, weight, and approximate age. In the few cases where there are many skeletons, one can construct mortality tables like the ones life insurance companies use to calculate expected life span and risk of death at any given age. Paleopathologists can also calculate growth rates by measuring bones of people of different ages, examine teeth for enamel defects (signs of childhood malnutrition), and recognize scars left on bones by anemia, tuberculosis, leprosy, and other diseases.
One straight forward example of what paleopathologists have learned from skeletons concerns historical changes in height. Skeletons from Greece and Turkey show that the average height of hunger-gatherers toward the end of the ice ages was a generous 5' 9'' for men, 5' 5'' for women. With the adoption of agriculture, height crashed, and by 3000 B. C. had reached a low of only 5' 3'' for men, 5' for women. By classical times heights were very slowly on the rise again, but modern Greeks and Turks have still not regained the average height of their distant ancestors.
Another example of paleopathology at work is the study of Indian skeletons from burial mounds in the Illinois and Ohio river valleys. At Dickson Mounds, located near the confluence of the Spoon and Illinois rivers, archaeologists have excavated some 800 skeletons that paint a picture of the health changes that occurred when a hunter-gatherer culture gave way to intensive maize farming around A. D. 1150. Studies by George Armelagos and his colleagues then at the University of Massachusetts show these early farmers paid a price for their new-found livelihood. Compared to the hunter-gatherers who preceded them, the farmers had a nearly 50 per cent increase in enamel defects indicative of malnutrition, a fourfold increase in iron-deficiency anemia (evidenced by a bone condition called porotic hyperostosis), a theefold rise in bone lesions reflecting infectious disease in general, and an increase in degenerative conditions of the spine, probably reflecting a lot of hard physical labor. "Life expectancy at birth in the pre-agricultural community was bout twenty-six years," says Armelagos, "but in the post-agricultural community it was nineteen years. So these episodes of nutritional stress and infectious disease were seriously affecting their ability to survive."
The evidence suggests that the Indians at Dickson Mounds, like many other primitive peoples, took up farming not by choice but from necessity in order to feed their constantly growing numbers. "I don't think most hunger-gatherers farmed until they had to, and when they switched to farming they traded quality for quantity," says Mark Cohen of the State University of New York at Plattsburgh, co-editor with Armelagos, of one of the seminal books in the field, Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture. "When I first started making that argument ten years ago, not many people agreed with me. Now it's become a respectable, albeit controversial, side of the debate."
There are at least three sets of reasons to explain the findings that agriculture was bad for health. First, hunter-gatherers enjoyed a varied diet, while early fanners obtained most of their food from one or a few starchy crops. The farmers gained cheap calories at the cost of poor nutrition, (today just three high-carbohydrate plants -- wheat, rice, and corn -- provide the bulk of the calories consumed by the human species, yet each one is deficient in certain vitamins or amino acids essential to life.) Second, because of dependence on a limited number of crops, farmers ran the risk of starvation if one crop failed. Finally, the mere fact that agriculture encouraged people to clump together in crowded societies, many of which then carried on trade with other crowded societies, led to the spread of parasites and infectious disease. (Some archaeologists think it was the crowding, rather than agriculture, that promoted disease, but this is a chicken-and-egg argument, because crowding encourages agriculture and vice versa.) Epidemics couldn't take hold when populations were scattered in small bands that constantly shifted camp. Tuberculosis and diarrheal disease had to await the rise of farming, measles and bubonic plague the appearnce of large cities.
Besides malnutrition, starvation, and epidemic diseases, farming helped bring another curse upon humanity: deep class divisions. Hunter-gatherers have little or no stored food, and no concentrated food sources, like an orchard or a herd of cows: they live off the wild plants and animals they obtain each day. Therefore, there can be no kings, no class of social parasites who grow fat on food seized from others. Only in a farming population could a healthy, non-producing elite set itself above the disease-ridden masses. Skeletons from Greek tombs at Mycenae c. 1500 B. C. suggest that royals enjoyed a better diet than commoners, since the royal skeletons were two or three inches taller and had better teeth (on the average, one instead of six cavities or missing teeth). Among Chilean mummies from c. A. D. 1000, the elite were distinguished not only by ornaments and gold hair clips but also by a fourfold lower rate of bone lesions caused by disease.
Similar contrasts in nutrition and health persist on a global scale today. To people in rich countries like the U. S., it sounds ridiculous to extol the virtues of hunting and gathering. But Americans are an elite, dependent on oil and minerals that must often be imported from countries with poorer health and nutrition. If one could choose between being a peasant farmer in Ethiopia or a bushman gatherer in the Kalahari, which do you think would be the better choice?
Farming may have encouraged inequality between the sexes, as well. Freed from the need to transport their babies during a nomadic existence, and under pressure to produce more hands to till the fields, farming women tended to have more frequent pregnancies than their hunter-gatherer counterparts -- with consequent drains on their health. Among the Chilean mummies for example, more women than men had bone lesions from infectious disease.
Women in agricultural societies were sometimes made beasts of burden. In New Guinea farming communities today I often see women staggering under loads of vegetables and firewood while the men walk empty-handed. Once while on a field trip there studying birds, I offered to pay some villagers to carry supplies from an airstrip to my mountain camp. The heaviest item was a 110-pound bag of rice, which I lashed to a pole and assigned to a team of four men to shoulder together. When I eventually caught up with the villagers, the men were carrying light loads, while one small woman weighing less than the bag of rice was bent under it, supporting its weight by a cord across her temples.
As for the claim that agriculture encouraged the flowering of art by providing us with leisure time, modern hunter-gatherers have at least as much free time as do farmers. The whole emphasis on leisure time as a critical factor seems to me misguided. Gorillas have had ample free time to build their own Parthenon, had they wanted to. While post-agricultural technological advances did make new art forms possible and preservation of art easier, great paintings and sculptures were already being produced by hunter-gatherers 15,000 years ago, and were still being produced as recently as the last century by such hunter-gatherers as some Eskimos and the Indians of the Pacific Northwest.
Thus with the advent of agriculture and elite became better off, but most people became worse off. Instead of swallowing the progressivist party line that we chose agriculture because it was good for us, we must ask how we got trapped by it despite its pitfalls.
One answer boils down to the adage "Might makes right." Farming could support many more people than hunting, albeit with a poorer quality of life. (Population densities of hunter-gatherers are rarely over on person per ten square miles, while farmers average 100 times that.) Partly, this is because a field planted entirely in edible crops lets one feed far more mouths than a forest with scattered edible plants. Partly, too, it's because nomadic hunter-gatherers have to keep their children spaced at four-year intervals by infanticide and other means, since a mother must carry her toddler until it's old enough to keep up with the adults. Because farm women don't have that burden, they can and often do bear a child every two years.
As population densities of hunter-gatherers slowly rose at the end of the ice ages, bands had to choose between feeding more mouths by taking the first steps toward agriculture, or else finding ways to limit growth. Some bands chose the former solution, unable to anticipate the evils of farming, and seduced by the transient abundance they enjoyed until population growth caught up with increased food production. Such bands outbred and then drove off or killed the bands that chose to remain hunter-gatherers, because a hundred malnourished farmers can still outfight one healthy hunter. It's not that hunter-gatherers abandoned their life style, but that those sensible enough not to abandon it were forced out of all areas except the ones farmers didn't want.
At this point it's instructive to recall the common complaint that archaeology is a luxury, concerned with the remote past, and offering no lessons for the present. Archaeologists studying the rise of farming have reconstructed a crucial stage at which we made the worst mistake in human history. Forced to choose between limiting population or trying to increase food production, we chose the latter and ended up with starvation, warfare, and tyranny.
Hunter-gatherers practiced the most successful and longest-lasting life style in human history. In contrast, we're still struggling with the mess into which agriculture has tumbled us, and it's unclear whether we can solve it. Suppose that an archaeologist who had visited from outer space were trying to explain human history to his fellow spacelings. He might illustrate the results of his digs by a 24-hour clock on which one hour represents 100,000 years of real past time. If the history of the human race began at midnight, then we would now be almost at the end of our first day. We lived as hunter-gatherers for nearly the whole of that day, from midnight through dawn, noon, and sunset. Finally, at 11:54 p. m. we adopted agriculture. As our second midnight approaches, will the plight of famine-stricken peasants gradually spread to engulf us all? Or will we somehow achieve those seductive blessings that we imagine behind agriculture's glittering facade, and that have so far eluded us?

Woodsman
06-18-16, 11:10 AM
WM, have your read the Mills book and did you think it was good? I have to agree with the idea that ... the bureaucracy is more self serving than before.

Excerpts in HS and once as an undergrad about a 100 years ago when I was far more primed for his vision of radical, egalitarian democracy than I am today.

But in terms of his description of how our world works and the dynamics of power following WWII, he did it first and probably best. As far back as 1956 when he published "The Power Elite" Mills has it figured out and gives the org chart, so in answer to your questions I say yes, it was good.

Mills' power elites see the world through a metaphysics of war and recognize each other as belonging to a separate and self-perpetuating class, superior to the rest of us and whose power rests in the centralization of their authority. For Mills, this new class represents their own interests exclusively, most of which are organized around the maintenance of a permanent war economy and a manipulative social and political order so to better manage the ebb and flow of human action.

Does that sound about right to you? How close does HRC fit the description of a power elite?


Hillary Clinton's takeover of the Democratic National Committee is underway. (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/brandon-davis-dnc-224440)

On Thursday, Brandon Davis, the former national political director for the Services Employees International Union, came in as the new chief of staff – and was introduced at an all-staff meeting by Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook.

DNC CEO Amy Dacey, a longtime Clinton ally, will expand her role to include more general election responsibilities, according to a Democratic official with ties to the DNC and Clinton. Jen O'Malley Dillon, a former deputy campaign manager for President Barack Obama's re-election efforts, will continue planning for the general election and serve in a senior advising role.

And more Clinton staffers are set to move over to the DNC.

jk
06-18-16, 12:00 PM
Excerpts in HS and once as an undergrad about a 100 years ago when I was far more primed for his vision of radical, egalitarian democracy than I am today.

But in terms of his description of how our world works and the dynamics of power following WWII, he did it first and probably best. As far back as 1956 when he published "The Power Elite" Mills has it figured out and gives the org chart, so in answer to your questions I say yes, it was good.

Mills' power elites see the world through a metaphysics of war and recognize each other as belonging to a separate and self-perpetuating class, superior to the rest of us and whose power rests in the centralization of their authority. For Mills, this new class represents their own interests exclusively, most of which are organized around the maintenance of a permanent war economy and a manipulative social and political order so to better manage the ebb and flow of human action.

Does that sound about right to you? How close does HRC fit the description of a power elite?
this sounds like oglesby's description of the "cowboy" elite. the "yankee" elite are more interested in finance both domestic and global. hrc manages to straddle both.

Polish_Silver
06-19-16, 06:12 PM
There's a classic article to that point by Jared Diamond I know you'll appreciate:


I have read the JD article many times. Three interesting notes:

1) He seems to have changed his mind, coming over to the mainstream view of "progress" , ie that human prehistory was filled with privation and violence,
which helps him get along with Harvard types, like Pinker.

2) The JD article is largely plaguiarized from a relatively unknown author (Sallins, sullins?). However, I believe JD's article is largely correct, based on my reading of ancient mythology (Gilgamesh, Genesis, Pandora) , accounts of explorers (Bligh) , analysis of human sexual physiology (http://beanproject.eu/job/testing-assumptions-neolithic-demographic-transition-ndt-through-direct-analysis-skeletal) and behavior (https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/1491512407).

3) The standard of living barely budged in europe from 1200 to 1800. What improvement there was, was caused mainly be improved trade lowering
the cost of imports, thereby raising real wages. Productivity barely budged. ( See Phelps, Mass Flourishing). After 1800, standards of living rose rapidly.

santafe2
06-21-16, 01:06 AM
3) The standard of living barely budged in europe from 1200 to 1800. What improvement there was, was caused mainly be improved trade lowering
the cost of imports, thereby raising real wages. Productivity barely budged. ( See Phelps, Mass Flourishing). After 1800, standards of living rose rapidly.

This analysis is incorrect and ignores the Renaissance, the rise of the mercantile class, the bankers and the European geographic discoveries of the 1600s. Productivity changed massively from 1500-1650. The author is analyzing aggregate standards. Not unlike today, this was a period of massive change, (relative of course). Those that did not embrace the change or have the capacity to change were crushed. The 1800s and after are all about nearly free energy. That time is ending and a new era is beginning. Like the early mercantile period, I'm not sure it's going to work out well for a lot of folks.

Polish_Silver
06-21-16, 09:59 AM
This analysis is incorrect and ignores the Renaissance, the rise of the mercantile class, the bankers and the European geographic discoveries of the 1600s. Productivity changed massively from 1500-1650. The author is analyzing aggregate standards. Not unlike today, this was a period of massive change, (relative of course). Those that did not embrace the change or have the capacity to change were crushed. The 1800s and after are all about nearly free energy. That time is ending and a new era is beginning. Like the early mercantile period, I'm not sure it's going to work out well for a lot of folks.

How did the Renaissance affect productivity ?

It was the Mercantile class and geographic discoveries that lowered the cost of trade.

What data says labor productivity increased from 1500-1650?

Since most people were farmers during this period, what matters most is agricultural productivity.

Phelp's data says it barely budged during this period, judging by the bushels a man could harvest in one day, etc.
It could be that better methods were offset by higher population density, causing people to work less fertile land.

Chris Coles
06-22-16, 05:55 AM
You all need to read two books:

Three Voyages of Drake, As Recorded in Contemporary Accounts, Edited by J. D. Upcott, B.A., Assistant Master at Eton College, Ginn and Company Ltd. Queen Square, London, W.C.1.

English Seamen in the XVIth Century by James Anthony Froude, London: George G. Harrup & Co. Ltd., 39-41 Parker St. Kingsway. (The lectures printed in this volume were delivered at Oxford in the Easter Terms of 1893 and 1894).

What you will discover is the transition from piracy to the defeat of the Spanish Armada by English seamen. IMHO it is the rise of the use of the sea as a means to improve the lot of many; who discovered the freedom engendered from the use of sail power to travel and thus to trade. Add the book publishing that spreads the concept of adventure right down to the common people; that is the driving force for the increase in the economies of many nations; not just the British.

Yes the merchants are an important input to the whole; but you must take account of the freedoms associated with the ability to sail ..... anywhere and do trade. Without the seamen, there would never have been merchants.

santafe2
06-22-16, 11:39 AM
You all need to read two books:

Three Voyages of Drake, As Recorded in Contemporary Accounts, Edited by J. D. Upcott, B.A., Assistant Master at Eton College, Ginn and Company Ltd. Queen Square, London, W.C.1.

English Seamen in the XVIth Century by James Anthony Froude, London: George G. Harrup & Co. Ltd., 39-41 Parker St. Kingsway. (The lectures printed in this volume were delivered at Oxford in the Easter Terms of 1893 and 1894).

What you will discover is the transition from piracy to the defeat of the Spanish Armada by English seamen. IMHO it is the rise of the use of the sea as a means to improve the lot of many; who discovered the freedom engendered from the use of sail power to travel and thus to trade. Add the book publishing that spreads the concept of adventure right down to the common people; that is the driving force for the increase in the economies of many nations; not just the British.

Yes the merchants are an important input to the whole; but you must take account of the freedoms associated with the ability to sail ..... anywhere and do trade. Without the seamen, there would never have been merchants.

Those are good points Chris and this is the main reason that as the European economy expanded during that period, economic power shifted from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic seaboard.

lektrode
06-22-16, 06:29 PM
Those are good points Chris and this is the main reason that as the European economy expanded during that period, economic power shifted from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic seaboard.

and just imagine what'll happen when 'the new silk road' gets paved/railroaded/seaported

meanwhile, the nka UFSA (united fascist states of amerika) devolves into 3rd-whirled status (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-22/obama-administration-launches-probe-trump-hotel-workers-wages)..

Woodsman
06-22-16, 07:40 PM
and just imagine what'll happen when 'the new silk road' gets paved/railroaded/seaported

meanwhile, the nka UFSA (united fascist states of amerika) devolves into 3rd-whirled status (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-22/obama-administration-launches-probe-trump-hotel-workers-wages)..

You callin' Chicago and its politics third-word? Oh, now you're really being politically incorrect. Truthful, but definitely not PC.

And you know who else is hitting on the truth? The Donald. Dig it:


And you know when she raises this money, every time she raises this money, she is making deals. They’re saying, ‘Can I be the ambassador to this? Can I do that? Make sure my business is being taken care of.’ I mean, give me a break. All of the money she is raising is blood money. Look, she is getting tremendous amounts from Wall Street. She is going to take care of Wall Street.”

All of the money she is raising is blood money (http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-hillary-clintons-fundraising-blood-money-2016-6)


Does he lie?

vt
06-22-16, 10:16 PM
The seeds of the financial crisis of 2008 were sown by the repeal of Glass-Steagall, signed by none other than Bill Clinton. In supporting roles were Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin (Goldman Sachs).

The only dissent came from a wise woman: Brooksley Born

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooksley_Born

https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=30885

shiny!
06-22-16, 11:56 PM
The seeds of the financial crisis of 2008 were sown by the repeal of Glass-Steagall, signed by none other than Bill Clinton. In supporting roles were Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin (Goldman Sachs).

The only dissent came from a wise woman: Brooksley Born

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooksley_Born

https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=30885

Frontline did an excellent documentary on Brooksley Born called, "The Warning." (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/) I highly recommend it!