|
So, we're seeing something akin to the early 1930s starting with the rise of fear of 'others', populism/nationalism on the upswing in multiple nations/geopolitical regions, currently without the wrecking ball of a Global Great Depression having been applied?
Without? Many countries never entirely recovered from Bernie Madoff, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and the ramifications of that catastrophe ten years ago. Western civilization has been on a permanent decline since it got its back broken in 2007. The combination of unemployed plus underemployed is staggeringly high, automation and cheaper countries are stealing all the jobs and we have tons of Master's Degrees effectively waitressing. Many people in their twenties and thirties are still waiting for the chance to get started with their lives, we're dealing with a lost generation. At the same time, country and world debt is off the scale because we can't sustain the necessary level of society without borrowing money. The wrecking ball of a global Great Depression is just more of a quicksand than a wrecking ball I suppose, with all of us sinking deeper every year.
Personally, I'm hoping to use some of that automation in useful ways, such as low-cost 3D-printed homes to bring one of the major costs people have down to a manageable range. You can't perpetually increase prices without increasing pay to match and expect it to work.
*shakes head* the oligarchy can't even pretend they care.
My understanding was that the DNC's chair has minimal actual impact on policy. Or, to put it another way, would putting someone like Ellison there actually help?
Policies aren't what win elections: volunteers are.
If policies won elections, all we'd need would be national tv/facebook/social media ads.
If you don't emotionally connect with the people doing the actual precinct work, you have few people volunteering and fewer people persuading voters that your policies matter.
All the people who believed in Bernie's policies and worked their butts off to get him nominated just got slapped in the face. Which is pretty demotivating. And pretty much validates the decisions of all of the folks who switched to Jill Stein instead of working for Clinton. The Green Party may be the vehicle the left uses to reorganize the troops.
They have a national elections infrastructure to get on the ballot in all 50 states. That's a huge advantage going forward: it means the Greens can pick up momentum rather than creating it.
Is this the same Jill Stein that ate dinner at a table with Michael Flynn and Vladimir Putin?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is this the same Jill Stein that ate dinner at a table with Michael Flynn and Vladimir Putin?
Stein is irrelevant. It's the fact that the Green Party is certified to automatically be on the ballot in 50 states that is important. No other 3rd party has that advantage
Honestly, I'd be surprised if we didn't see a lot of much more qualified candidates filing as Greens. She's the best they could do when the left was still under the illusion that they could take back the Democratic Party apparatus. She's history now that socialists have been kicked out of the Democrats. They need a new way to win elections, and the Green Party legal structure is handy.
Word on the street is the Greens are being riven by their own left-right dissensions about how to deal with the Democrats in the future with the right wing of the party (Jill) being in favor of closer collaboration and the left wing (Ajamu) being like "f~+# that bullshiznit."
Or so I've heard. I'm not in the Greens.
Democratic Party Orthodoxy
Naked Capitalism. Nice. Mr. Comrade used to follow that site for awhile. I don't think he does anymore, but that has more to do with his ADHD than Yves and co.
Word on the street is the Greens are being riven by their own left-right dissensions about how to deal with the Democrats in the future with the right wing of the party (Jill) being in favor of closer collaboration and the left wing (Ajamu) being like "f+@+ that bullshiznit."
Or so I've heard. I'm not in the Greens.
There is a healthy dose of "f&$! the lot of ya we'll work on building our own party" within the greens ive talked to.
|
My understanding was that the DNC's chair has minimal actual impact on policy. Or, to put it another way, would putting someone like Ellison there actually help?
Ellison is an excellent organizer and is full of energy. He could tap into the pulse going on right now and use that momentum. Since the role is minor it could have been a handout to the more progressive side of the party to try and bring folks back together. Instead they decided to give a second middle finger to the progressives with Perez.
There is a healthy dose of "f&*% the lot of ya we'll work on building our own party" within the greens ive talked to.Word on the street is the Greens are being riven by their own left-right dissensions about how to deal with the Democrats in the future with the right wing of the party (Jill) being in favor of closer collaboration and the left wing (Ajamu) being like "f+@+ that bullshiznit."
Or so I've heard. I'm not in the Greens.
Up here, most of the Jill voters went back to the Dems after the election and got involved in Berniecrat groups like Rights and Democracy, with only a very few holdouts.
Of course, there isn't an official New Hampshire Green Party yet, so that might have something to do with it. They're working on it though. Jill's coming up on Monday for a meeting at the library, but I work evenings now. Should send someone to thank her for coming to our Philando Castile/Alton Stirling march over the summer, though. I remember Mr. Comrade fancied taking a shot at seducing her. (He's getting kind of full of himself.)
Hey! I mean, I know the job's over, but they pay $20/hr to be a Field Canvasser.
[Thinks about selling out to the Dems and quitting at UPS]
My understanding was that the DNC's chair has minimal actual impact on policy. Or, to put it another way, would putting someone like Ellison there actually help?Ellison is an excellent organizer and is full of energy. He could tap into the pulse going on right now and use that momentum. Since the role is minor it could have been a handout to the more progressive side of the party to try and bring folks back together. Instead they decided to give a second middle finger to the progressives with Perez.
Basically this. It would have also reassured the progressive wing of the party that there wouldn't be the same attitude of coronation rather than election during party primaries.
Basically this. It would have also reassured the progressive wing of the party that there wouldn't be the same attitude of coronation rather than election during party primaries.My understanding was that the DNC's chair has minimal actual impact on policy. Or, to put it another way, would putting someone like Ellison there actually help?Ellison is an excellent organizer and is full of energy. He could tap into the pulse going on right now and use that momentum. Since the role is minor it could have been a handout to the more progressive side of the party to try and bring folks back together. Instead they decided to give a second middle finger to the progressives with Perez.
To me it raises concerns that the dems might end up, within a year, falling back to "we did nothing wrong last time so lets makes no changes", something that politicians tend to like to fall back on. IF so we might be screwed, at least until the old guard can be primaried out by more progressive folks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is this the same Jill Stein that ate dinner at a table with Michael Flynn and Vladimir Putin?Stein is irrelevant. It's the fact that the Green Party is certified to automatically be on the ballot in 50 states that is important. No other 3rd party has that advantage
Honestly, I'd be surprised if we didn't see a lot of much more qualified candidates filing as Greens. She's the best they could do when the left was still under the illusion that they could take back the Democratic Party apparatus. She's history now that socialists have been kicked out of the Democrats. They need a new way to win elections, and the Green Party legal structure is handy.
I have to say if we have to rely upon the Greens to save us from Republican control, I think we truly are doomed.
That's alright. How anyone can look at the last century and conclude the solution is taking over the Democrats baffles me.
C'est la vie.
Is this the same Jill Stein that ate dinner at a table with Michael Flynn and Vladimir Putin?Stein is irrelevant. It's the fact that the Green Party is certified to automatically be on the ballot in 50 states that is important. No other 3rd party has that advantage
Honestly, I'd be surprised if we didn't see a lot of much more qualified candidates filing as Greens. She's the best they could do when the left was still under the illusion that they could take back the Democratic Party apparatus. She's history now that socialists have been kicked out of the Democrats. They need a new way to win elections, and the Green Party legal structure is handy.
You brought her up.
Last election, the best the Greens could manage was a city council member (technical title is different and sounds even less impressive) from a town of 50,000 people. That person was a guest of honor at a dinner for Putin's tv channel. If you think that kind of thing is the way forward, you're already showing that you don't have a clue on a way forward. Stein was the best the Greens had and she was inept at best.
Analogy: You think you can win an NBA title with 3rd graders, because they've got a lot of heart and always behave well at nap time.
If you don't understand people, it's hard to convince them to start agreeing with you - and from there, to help advance your goals. o wo If you really want to make a difference, it's probably worth really figuring out why they believe what they believe and going from there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That person was a guest of honor at a dinner for Putin's tv channel. If you think that kind of thing is the way forward, you're already showing that you don't have a clue on a way forward.
If you think RT is some kind of problem, I think you are out of touch with actual progressives, (as are most of the Democratic party establishment). I would also say that if you think Russia is important to most voters, you are missing the big picture. Most progressives thank whoever leaked the DNC emails, as it revealed what a disgraceful operation the DNC was running. Perez is basically like putting Schultz back in power. A DNC Chair who supports the TPP? Good luck with that.
Democratic control is at it's lowest level in almost 100 years, and nothing is being done. The general message is that everyone is to blame, except the party itself. Unfortunately, the one thing the Democrats are generally good at is keeping third party candidates down. From Nader, to the Greens, and especially their own progressive challengers. Note: If you watched RT, you might have seen Greg Palast explaining CrossCheck voter suppression. OK, you might have seen that in a variety of places, but on Redacted Tonight (RT!) he explains why the Democrats don't fight back - because they do the same suppression during their primaries.
I don't think the Greens are the progressive party of the future (in the US anyway). I think it is going to be something like the Working Families Party, or something that Bernie types start up in the coming years. And before you say that is impossible, I would remind you of other various impossible political developments that would have been impossible such as Bernie, Trump, and the alt-right take-over.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That person was a guest of honor at a dinner for Putin's tv channel. If you think that kind of thing is the way forward, you're already showing that you don't have a clue on a way forward.If you think RT is some kind of problem
All of your progressive talk sounds hollow if you think Putin is a good guy. It makes me question every time you complain about suppression of voters/protesters. If you think killing journalists and opposition politicians is good, I doubt your commitment to progressive ideals.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of your progressive talk sounds hollow if you think Putin is a good guy. It makes me question every time you complain about suppression of voters/protesters. If you think killing journalists and opposition politicians is good, I doubt your commitment to progressive ideals.
Please show me where I said Putin was a good guy?
Please show me where I said killing journalists and opposition politicians is good.
You can question my complaints about suppression of voters/protesters all you like, but they remain the truth. Please show me the truth of your statements...
EDIT: I will give you some serious Party Points for turning talk of Democratic Party voter suppression into -"You love Putin!". Conway would be proud!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You didn't actually say either - you did dismiss RT as a problem. You did dismiss the dinner where Stein and Flynn were Putin's guests - paid in Flynn's case. You did suggest you'd thank "whoever" hacked the DNC.
Putin would be proud. :)
RT is not problem.
Stein sat at a table with Putin... and...What exactly are you accusing her of? Please be specific. I hope you have something more then seating arrangements!
I do thank whoever hacked the DNC and revealed their shameful behavior. Would you have preferred it stayed hidden? I don't care how the information was taken, or by who. I care that it is true, which the Democrats lied about themselves. I put Country above Party, and that information was very important for people to know. Do you have ANY real evidence of anything the Russians did to change our election? Or is this more trust-the-CIA type stuff.
Sorry, but when I apply critical thinking to all this stuff, I don't buy into it. There is no substance there, just some sorry excuses for a crappy candidate getting beat. If you have anything more then secret evidence, innuendo, and unanswered questions, let me know.
All of your progressive talk sounds hollow if you think Putin is a good guy. It makes me question every time you complain about suppression of voters/protesters. If you think killing journalists and opposition politicians is good, I doubt your commitment to progressive ideals.Please show me where I said Putin was a good guy?
Please show me where I said killing journalists and opposition politicians is good.
You can question my complaints about suppression of voters/protesters all you like, but they remain the truth. Please show me the truth of your statements...
EDIT: I will give you some serious Party Points for turning talk of Democratic Party voter suppression into -"You love Putin!". Conway would be proud!
You expect me to defend EVERYTHING Democrats do. So, as long as you say RT is not a problem, I expect you defend Putin's killing of journalists. If you're going to defend RT, since RT belongs to Putin, you have to defend EVERYTHING done by Putin.
If you're going to get righteous with me, I'm going to remind you that you think Putin's not so bad for killing journalists.
We can move on for now, but I'll keep these posts bookmarked for later.
Edit: or you could stop assigning me my opinion and asking me to defend literally everything democrats do. Get off your high horse, or defend why it's okay to kill journalists.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You expect me to defend EVERYTHING Democrats do.
I honestly have no idea where you get that idea.
I also can't follow your logic or if/then statements.
Perhaps if you posted some facts, we could discuss those... That might be more productive.
You expect me to defend EVERYTHING Democrats do.I honestly have no idea where you get that idea.
I get it from how you talk to me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do thank whoever hacked the DNC and revealed their shameful behavior.
What, specifically, was shameful?
Sure the democrats might have used superdelegates to toss Clinton the win.. but they didn't (because they didn't have to
Would you have preferred it stayed hidden?
Yes. It's not a fair contest of ideas when the republicans can run with their public image, but people get to look through the democrats sausage making factory.
Do you have ANY real evidence of anything the Russians did to change our election? Or is this more trust-the-CIA type stuff. Sorry, but when I apply critical thinking to all this stuff
Russia hacked the DNC to help trump win the election.
17 intelligence agencies agreed on that.
Trump campaign officials were meeting with russia
Trump and putin have a mancrush going on
NONE of that is in dispute. So thinking russia didn't affect the election is a complete failure of critical thinking. It's not reasonable to expect the person you're talking to to be the tech going through the computer.
[
I don't buy into it. There is no substance there, just some sorry excuses for a crappy candidate getting beat. If you have anything more then secret evidence, innuendo, and unanswered questions, let me know.
The FBI announcing "OH MY GOD EMAILS EXIST IN MULTIPLE PLACES" to a public primed to go apepoo crazy over any mention of hillary and emails?
Yes. If clinton had the charisma of a damp sponge she should have been able to win anyway. She doesn't, so she didn't. Would she still have lost without it? It's hard to say what any one thing would cost how many votes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Article on the ethics of leaking the emails:
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/13/on-wikileaks-journalism-and-privacy-rep orting-on-the-podesta-archive-is-an-easy-call/
Specific examples of shameful behavior:
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinto n-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/07/excerpts-of-hillary-clintons-paid-speec hes-to-goldman-sachs-finally-leaked/
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/22/new-leak-top-dnc-official-wanted-to-use -bernie-sanderss-religious-beliefs-against-him/
The bottom line is that people such as DW Schultz should have been overseeing a fair selection process, not crowning a monarch. She resigned in disgrace, her replacement was disgraced for handing questions from CNN to the DNC.
As mentioned in the first link, releasing the hacked emails is obvious in terms of ethics. I would always put the truth before Party loyalty. I think if the situation was reversed (RNC hacked) many people would be taking a different view.
None of what you present is close to evidence. Our intelligence agencies are supposed to produce false information to support their goals. Saying that the guys who had proof of WMD in Iraq now have secret evidence (that I'm sure you can only read with invisible gold spectacles!) is not any kind of standard for for anything except faith-based belief.
Also, if you are worried about foreign influence, I would be more worried about Netanyahu sleeping in Jared Kushner's bed then meetings in Russia that may... mean... something... maybe...
Again, putting aside a lifetime of Red Dawn and Evil Empire conditioning, there is nothing there. There is no proof of anything.
Did Russia attempt to influence our election? Hell yes! The way EVERY country on Earth (including the US) attempts to influence EVERY other countries elections! If that is your excuse for Clinton losing, then you can't have a democracy on the planet Earth. Clinton didn't lose because of Russia or her dumpstat. She lost because her very name is synonymous with NAFTA, outsourcing, and political cronyism.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
How come Bernie supporters were outraged?Because that's all they know how to be...
welcome to a trump victory in 2020. Its been interesting watching a party ive supported for 20 years die of autoerotic asphyxiation but its probably time to untie the belt.
At a guess? It looked like he had a lot of support from young people - who tend to be very passionate, but with little brand loyalty, especially because many of them may have been getting genuinely involved for the first time. And they did get involved, but many probably felt that they were just slapped aside with the whole "DNC biased towards Hillary" thing. I mean, if he lost fair and square, they probably wouldn't have minded so much - but if you cheat to win, they're not going to forget that so easily.
welcome to a trump victory in 2020. Its been interesting watching a party ive supported for 20 years die of autoerotic asphyxiation but its probably time to untie the belt.How come Bernie supporters were outraged?Because that's all they know how to be...You'd rather be dependent on a bunch of spoiled (non)voters who would rather watch the country burn then not get their way every time?
Although I agree on a probable Trump victory in 2020. I don't expect the people who voted for him to pay any attention to the negative consequences of his leadership.
"Their way every time" is actually, anything at all. Not even a nod until the establishment candidate got trounced and lost.
The DNC needs them more than they need the DNC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
welcome to a trump victory in 2020. Its been interesting watching a party ive supported for 20 years die of autoerotic asphyxiation but its probably time to untie the belt.
Doh!, that made me laugh so hard I spit coffee all over my desk!
Honestly, I'd give about even odds for Trump not making it to 2020, Trump losing in 2020 and Trump winning in 2020.
IMO, the whole Hillary/Bernie corporate/socialism debate will have almost no effect on those odds, other than by sapping energy that could be used in opposition. It will be driven largely by what the Trump administration does and how it works and how Democrats respond and engage with the opposition movements. Which are not, by and large, socialist/economic/Bernie style groups.
I agree with those Trump odds. As for the second paragraph, I think it depends on what type of candidate they run. If it is someone like Warren, Booker, or the like, it won't be an issue. If it is Hilary again, or Schultz, or someone with lots of pro-corporate baggage, I can see a repeat of 2016 all over again.
For the folks on the left defending Putin and his hacks...you folks realize that stuff was released to make Hillary look bad right? Had Bernie won the nomination instead, we wouldn't have seen stuff like that leaked. Almost certainly there would have been hacks and release of info that made Bernie look bad. Even if Bernie is less of foreign interventionist than Hillary, it's not like Bernie is giving high fives to Russia. He would have almost certainly have kept sanctions up against Russia, would have provided solid backing to NATO, and..lets not forget his support of Green Energy is very much a potential threat, given how much Russian economy relies upon the fossil fuel industry.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinto n-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/
Seriously? Woman preparing to run for president for 50 years knows which reporters are friendly to her. News at 1l.
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/07/excerpts-of-hillary-clintons-paid -speeches-to-goldman-sachs-finally-leaked/
GASP. Politicians not completely honest. Need to run for office and not lose votes.
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/22/new-leak-top-dnc-official-wanted- to-use-bernie-sanderss-religious-beliefs-against-him/
Hey, atheists are not very popular in some parts of the country. Should we use that?
To which the response seems to have been, no. Because i heard more peeps out of bernie's sparrow than that.
As mentioned in the first link, releasing the hacked emails is obvious in terms of ethics. I would always put the truth before Party loyalty. I think if the situation was reversed (RNC hacked) many people would be taking a different view.
Once you've got it sure. I'm not saying it's unethical to release.
None of what you present is close to evidence.
You do realize that there is a difference between proof and evidence?
As a non computer tech, what evidence for or against a russian hacking would you expect there to be?Saying that the guys who had proof of WMD in Iraq now have secret evidence (that I'm sure you can only read with invisible gold spectacles!) is not any kind of standard for for anything except faith-based belief.
to what end?
I think the bush administration is faking evidence of wmd's to start a war with iraq
Why would they do that?
Well his VP is the president of an oil company, he works for an oil company, republicans are friendly with oil companies, they've had plans to invade iraq drawn up since kissinger..
Also, if you are worried about foreign influence, I would be more worried about Netanyahu sleeping in Jared Kushner's bed then meetings in Russia that may... mean... something... maybe...
I'm not israel's biggest fan, but they're small potatoes and largely single issue. Russia is more "i want your life to suck as much as mine"
Again, putting aside a lifetime of Red Dawn and Evil Empire conditioning, there is nothing there. There is no proof of anything.
What would EVIDENCE for a russian hack look like?
If that is your excuse for Clinton losing, then you can't have a democracy on the...
It's not the excuse. It's one reason.
You think she could have won if she had been more honest and more anti corporation. It's possible that you're right. It's also possible that an anti corporate stance would have cost her funding and thus votes: you can't make any policy if you don't get into office and it's harder to get into office if every millionaire in the country hates you.
@MMCJawa
Nobody knows who released the DNC emails.
US intelligence agencies say the Russians did it.
So what ? You trust the word of spies ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really love that we've got the supposed Left on here parroting the defenses of the Trump spokespeople because they hate the Democratic Party so much.
That's the same thing I see the Bern-outs on my Facebook doing, between repeating right-wing Clinton murder conspiracies and posting how fluoridated water is government plot to dumb down voters.
Why should anyone be catering to these people?
|
@MMCJawa
Nobody knows who released the DNC emails.
US intelligence agencies say the Russians did it.
So what ? You trust the word of spies ?
Just Saying, maybe, just maybe someone f!*!ed up big time, and it's no ones fault but the Democratic party.