Willie71

9 hours ago, CharonY said:

So, there is an interesting book by Metzl that just been out that explains to some degree how politicians manage to maintain these policies (though not necessarily why). The provocative title is "Dying by Whiteness" and the author argues that certain white folks are voting against government health programs, gun control and tax laws that would actually benefit them and actually hurting their own health in the process. The way politicians convince them to do so is by selling them as countermeasures against what they describe as criminals, lazy government moochers and Big government. In other words, they sell these measures as ways, to safeguard to position of white folks in today's society. Politicians tap into the fear that redistribution of resources may endanger to their privilege. A barely veiled implication that is sold heavily is that these social measures will take away from whites and benefit minorities. Metzl is a psychologist but has taken an epidemiological view on these policies and demonstrates that they actually hurt (poor) white folks as badly as the minorities against which those measures are supposed to be leveraged against. The interesting bit is that while policies were shaped by racial tension, the individuals do not necessarily have an explicit racist world view (and aspect that he highlighted in interviews), but politicians heavily tap into the fear of loss and the use of scapegoats.

I think despite the issues Canada may have, there a bit less fear that someone undeserved may come up. Though I am pretty sure instances likes this where folks work against their interest may also be present (I guess that is something to read up on).

We see a fair bit of this in Alberta, the Texas of the North. I have clients on permanent disability who vote conservative because they think conservative policies are aimed at cutting funding for deadbeats, not themselves. It’s a great con. Down east, this is less prevalent. I’m progressive because I’m economically conservative. It’s cheaper to provide free addictions services than pay for multiple emergency room visits and incarcerations. Welfare is cheaper than the cost of crime and incarcerations. Spending on infrastructure maintenance is cheaper than rebuilding neglected infrastructure. I could go on, but you get the point. Being conservative is the opposite of what conservatives sell us as a message. 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Trump lost the popular vote by millions and numerous individuals associated with his campaign have been found guilty in court of felons. I think it is inaccurate to imply Trump the election on messaging. 

I am all for raising taxes. I am for universal healthcare. However I am also aware that the govt is over a trillion dollars in the whole annually currently and every emergency (hurricane, fires, etc) just goes straight toward debt. We need to increase taxes meaningfully just to balance the budget. The Budget request for 2020 is $4.75 trillion.Last the federal govt brought in $3.4 trillion in tax revenue. The math isn't hard to do.  So floating new programs paid for by taxes in the absences of addressing the budget we have and its shortfalls is a nonstarter for me. Not merely is it bad policy but it will never make it through Congress successfully. 

I understand the desire to elect someone with big ideas and who wants to bring about major change but we aren't starting from scratch unfortunately. Change will need to be methodical and spreed across a couple administrations if it is to realistically succeed. 

 

Trump sent a message to the rust belt, combined with significant voter suppression in those states to take the win. American elections aren’t won on popular vote, there was no way Trump was going to win in California or New York, just like it was unlikely for Clinton to win in the south. When people say Clinton screwed up, we mean she miscalculated in the rust belt, where polling showed she was in real trouble. People were so desperate they chose to go for Trump (after voting for Obama previously), as more of what was promised for decades was no longer palatable. Going back to that message will work betterthis time? Maybe since Trump hasn’t delivered on any economic promises. It’s still a tough sell to say people should go back to believing in neoliberalism. We know that killed people’s livelihood. 

The american deficit is the result if two of two main problems. Massive overspending on the military, and ridiculously low real tax rates, the US has incredible per capital gdp. It’s a myth you can’t afford what every other developed nation can afford. Incremental change is what neoliberalism has promised for decades, and people are sick of the con. 

Reality is coal jobs jobs aren’t coming back. Oil jobs will decline in the next couple decades. Automation will replace labourers. There aren’t enough jobs for university graduates who carry massive debt, The US is becoming a service and entertainment economy for regular folk. It’s frightening for young people looking at what the future holds. These people need to be inspired, not placated with more incrementalism. 

11 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I don't think floating reparations specifically addresses racism in the U.S. very well. Even as symbols it is far weaker than Trump's Wall, Muslim Ban, and demand everyone stand for the anthem are far more powerful. 

 

Economic justice won’t play well with staunch republicans, especially Trump’s base, but there are a lot of people who were promised a payout for sacrificing commons. Even a majority of republicans favour taxing corporations more, and expanding access to healthcare. Sanders started a massive movement on this, and newer politicians are building careerson it, such as AOC or Omar. This is the unifying message. Who is better off under Trump than they were under Obama, or BushII, or Clinton, or Reagan? Send this message home, and you will win the White House. The DNC has to let go of being republican lite, and define itself as being there for the people. Trump sold this, even though he was lying. 

I’m going to offer a bit of a different perspective on the democratic primary. If broad support from the electorate is preferred, then a couple litmus tests must be met. These are the minimum standards I hear about from progressives. 

1. No big money donors. Recent converts may be accepted, but the voting record will look at consistency with the public good vs. corporate benefit. 

2. A national health care solution. 

3. A focus on the commons. Rebuilding infrastructure, investments in education, reducing the predatory aspects of end stage capitalism. 

Some of these issues aren’t the main focus of people on this forum. Backing candidates who don’t embrace these ideals will likely result in a repeat of 2016. Clinton was out of touch with these issues, and the republicans had the benefit of a decades long smear campaign  to build on. I left the forum when pointing these issues out was met with incredulity. Some people weren’t even aware of what a neoliberal or third way democrat was. They are moderate republicans, calling themselves liberals. I cannot see how a third way candidate will win in 2020. The promises from decades ago, saying that people can sacrifice a bit now for a big payout later, no longer hold water. Wages are stagnant, the environment is a mess, academia is being bought out by corporate interests, and slashing spending on the commons has harmed, not benefitted most people. Small tax savings have been far eclipsed by added out of pocket expenses. 

Kamala Harris is not favoured by any progressives I know. Beto is better than Cruz, but not seen as a strong populist. Booker sold out people for big pharma not too long ago. 

Sanders, Gabbard (stood up to the DNC, and Clinton), and Warren are the strongest politicians on progressive values. Look at AOC. A candidate must speak clearly about the problems, like Trump did, but offer viable solutions. Trump promised lower cost, higher quality health care. It’s a popular idea. Even republicans outside of the 30% base love the idea. 

It’s been a while since I posted here. Following the newer Democratic congresspeople, I understood Omar’s comments to be solely about those who profit from the status quo, not an anti Semitic comment. Rebuking money in politics is the litmus test for young progressives. There is a lot of money funneled to Israel, and the arms industry makes a killing off of conflict in the Middle East. Many lobbyist groups side with Israel even if they aren’t inherently Jewish. The American dominionists want Israel in the hands of Jewish people so their end times fantasies of the second coming can be realized. Those people aren’t being criticized as antiemetic. As she said, it’s about the benjamins, not supporting the plight of Jewish people. Not to mention the Jewish people aren’t the oppressed group when looking at the situation in Palestine. Do Trump or Pence actually care about Jewish people? Not a chance. 

One thing I do know is that establishment democrats are really good at losing. This confused message regarding antisenetism is much more likely Pelosi trying to avoid an honest discussion on money in politics, a topic she would lose on. 

You should fight laws that are wrong. You shouldn't equate the legal but "not right" (Citizen's United ruling and capital punishment and poor cabinet choices) with the illegal (assault, breach of contract, and fraud).

That was my point. Even if there were no laws broken with the donations from foreign powers, or the conspiring in the primaries, it's hard to defend the actions discussed. I didn't say she should be charged, or podesta be charged, just that it takes apologetics to justify that no ethical wrongdoing happened. The world isn't a fair place. That expose confirmed many people's perceptions of poor ethics, corruption (loosely defined), and being at the beckoning of the donors, and people didn't like what they saw. I've heard many justify it as "that's the way it's always done." but that falls short for people looking for change. Not addressing this image with more than a rebranding won't work. There needs to be evidence that people, not donors, will be represented.

I think I missed your point. I'm not advocating for charges if no laws were broken. What I'm saying is two fold. People don't trust that the investigation was legitimate on one hand. Secondly, if it was legitimate, and no laws were broken, the emails still stink and have ethical concerns. Neither is a favourable position.

I want to point out that you're basically saying the law shouldn't matter if you think something is "not right". Further, you imply ("at minimum") that your views make this an actionable offense. I can't agree with this. It's not on the same level as, say, advocating assault.

 

I think citizens united is wrong. It's legal, but it's wrong. I disagree that police have a different standard for culpability when killing another person. It's legal, but it's wrong. It's legal for trump to appoint devoss to his cabinet, but it's wrong. Few people disagree with these positions. Definitely not an arbitrary standard.

Podesta talked about issues that skirt legality in the USA, but in other nations would be illegal. I stand by my position. Actionable in this case is choosing not to support a party that contradicts people's ethics. The other option was worse, but that's what you get in a two party system that sold out to big money industries.

OK - Can someone educate me please... The above article seems to suggest that Clinton wasn't voted in because she wasn't trusted because she was corrupt and represented everything people hate about the democrat party... But I thought (maybe naively) that nothing of those allegations stuck. What was she guilty of to have all of that thrown at her and why did people believe it if it wasn't true? I am confused now. I assumed that the alleged 'meddling' was to blow smoke over Clinton to make it seem as though she was probably guilty of at least something and thus influence the minds of the easily swayed, err, I mean the American public, against her.

 

What am I missing?

People don't believe the investigations were legitimate, or that there was any chance of her being actually charged for wrongdoings. In the same vein that police are rarely charged, let alone convicted for wrongdoing, or how the bankers responsible for the massive fraud committed against the American people weren't charged. Additionally, none of the people responsible for the war crimes in the Middle East or gapuantanamo were prosecuted. There is a lack of trust in the process. It takes pretty heroic apologetics to read the podesta e-mails and not at minimum say, damn, that's not right. Even if it was not illegal, it was pretty smelly.

Much more important than Russian interference (which the report included media reports on fracking as propaganda against the USA) is the abomination called "crosscheck." Millions of people, most democrats, were prevented from having their vote counted, without any proof they were voting fraudulently. The number of actual violations is in single digits.

Well. I wonder exactly what is going on in your minds. Science is the job of being skeptical about everything ALL of the time. Even your own work might be wrong and every time you trust anyone else you could be putting everything you ever worked for in jeopardy. It doesn't matter whether you are the smallest technician or the highest PhD. I made the mistake of trusting other and on a couple of occasions it almost killed me. So I trust no one and nothing until I have convinced myself that I am acting correctly.

 

We have absolutely NO way of knowing that "Russia" or any other nation was responsible for anything that Wikileaks released. What's MORE none of the information they released was denied by the DNC, the Hillary campaign or the media who were responsible for using unethical means to destroy Bernie Sanders chance at a nomination. Sanders was aware that this happened and yet then campaigned for Hillary. Does that sound moral? Now he'll have to suffer living in his six million dollar home and telling everyone else that socialism is a superior means of government.

 

Whoever it was, they should be given a commendation from this entire nation of either party. Lying to the people of this country by the media and the political establishment HAS TO STOP.

 

Secondly, exactly who is kidding who? The United States since the time of Reagan has hacked every single electronic communication device in the entire world. In the time of George Bush they actually recorded every single communication in the entire world CONTRARY to our Constitutional rights. Obama DOUBLED DOWN ON THIS until Citizens United took this before the Supreme Court and were ordered that they could not tap any citizen's communications without court orders.

 

Russia interfered with American elections by telling the truth? The US has used matware intrusions into MANY governments. In Iran and North Korea they inserted viruses that caused the centrifuges separating U235 from U238 to break down. At one time a third of Iran's processing plants were broken down.

 

How DARE anyone complain that WE might have to take electronic countermeasures to protect ourselves from what the entire rest of the world FRIEND AND FOE ALIKE has had to do from the moment that they began using the Internet seriously? To protect themselves from us.

 

Do none of you who are supposed to be scientists even use your brains for anything other than doorstops when you are not inside your professional cocoons? Please think.

It really puzzles me that so many bright people have blinders on regarding the corruption in US elections, and the meddling seen around the world overthrowing other governments.

The intelligence reports are not very strong in the evidence department. There is a possibility/probability that the Russians interfered, but I really doubt this is a new development. This reeks of using McCarthyism to deflect from the internal problems.

I suspect much of the issue is that the people most likely to benefit from third way are the professionals who make up the top 10% of the income ladder, the same people likely to be on this board. Not a lot of blue collar workers who lost good paying manufacturing jobs after Nafta, and are now working 70h/week in the service industry to feed their kids. They have a very different experience with the Clinton and Obama presidencies, nothing you posted is really disputable. I'm surprised you have negative props for this pist.

It is about racism. Pro Aryan beliefs are seeded throughout Western and Eastern Europe well as Northern America. The allure of lands belonging to whites, traditions of a nation having white ownership, whites being the heartland of society, and etc are ones that have many sympathizers and to an extent it seems to transcend borders. In my opinion when the Republican party embraced pro segregation bigots after the Civil Rights Act they made a calculated mistake. As a result it is no coincidence that during & following the successful service of our first non-white male president we have seen the GOP erode into facsim. The Tea Party primary and bullied traditional republicans over the last couple of midterms and have successfully created a party that isn't interested in governing the United States of America but rather are more interested in changing it fundamentally. This is basically a cold burning coup. The GOP has lost the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 general elections yet somehow control every branch of the federal govt and the majority of the individual state seats.

There are conflicting reports on the role if racism in this election. It's definitely one of the major issues, but the democrats are focusing on the racism and McCarthyism and ignoring the economic motivators created by neoliberalism. I went back to posts from November because I thought I posted this video before. Apoarently I didn't, or it's in a different thread. This is the best explanation I have seen regarding the effects of third way democratic policies worldwide. Mark Blyth is well spoken, and well informed. The democrats need to address this issue if they want to regain relevance in upcoming elections, something they are doing horribly at imho.

If anyone wants a pretty good explanation of why conservatives won't be swayed by a debate, this book is a pretty good read,

https://www.amazon.ca/Republican-Brain-Science-Science-Reality/dp/1118094514

Much of the current research us discussed, and debating or arguing with conservatives tends to strengthen their beliefs, not moderate them. I struggle with this, because I tend to focus on evidence. Presenting good evidence is a losing strategy in this case though.

Trump claims climate change is a hoax while taking steps to protect his property from the effects of climate change. I think the republicans are aware of reality, excepting the true fundamentalists who think God controls the weather.

Confirmation bias is a well known effect. We naturally gravitate towards views that agree with us. We can see patterns where there aren't any. This is why research has to have so many checks and balances, combined with statistical analysis. Our "common sense" is often very innacurate. The next level up from that is motivated reasoning. In very basic terms, confirmation bias plus active dismissal of opposing information.

To discuss fascism, it might be worthwhile to look at a few definitions of fascism, and see how Trump compares to them. I hate to use wikipidia, but these definitions aren't bad:

Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have long debated the exact nature of fascism.[22] Each interpretation of fascism is distinct, leaving many definitions too wide or narrow.[23][24]

 

One common definition of the term focuses on three concepts: the fascist negations of anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism; nationalist authoritarian goals of creating a regulated economic structure to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture; and a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view of violence, and promotion of masculinity, youth and charismatic leadership.[25][26][27] According to many scholars, fascism—especially once in power—has historically attacked communism, conservatism and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far right.[28]

 

Roger Griffin describes fascism as "a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism".[29] Griffin describes the ideology as having three core components: "(i) the rebirth myth, (ii) populist ultra-nationalism and (iii) the myth of decadence".[30] Fascism is "a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism" built on a complex range of theoretical and cultural influences. He distinguishes an inter-war period in which it manifested itself in elite-led but populist "armed party" politics opposing socialism and liberalism and promising radical politics to rescue the nation from decadence.[31]

 

Robert Paxton says that fascism is "a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."[32]

 

Umberto Eco,[33] Kevin Passmore,[34] John Weiss,[35] Ian Adams,[36] and Moyra Grant,[37] mention racism (including anti-semitism) as a characteristic of fascism; e.g. fascistic dictator Hitler idealized German society as a racially unified and hierarchically organized Volksgemeinschaft.

 

John Lukacs, Hungarian-American historian and Holocaust survivor, argues that there is no such thing as generic fascism. He claims that National Socialism and Communism are essentially manifestations of populism and that states such as Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy are more different than similar.[38]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

You can see the elements are there, but not fully formed.

There is an argument that is debated vigorously, that America has become a one Party state, with the democrats moving too far right with pro corporatist and pro banking policies. One look at the police violence in North Dakota, ordered by the state, with no interference from the federal government would support this assertion, as would no prosecutions of the banking fraud from the 2008 crash. The argument that the fraud was made legal through laws passed by the government doesn't help the argument much.

Is it clearly fascupist yet? Nope, but the elements are there, and it's a dangerous dance. One politician in the south is refusing to accept his loss and will not cede the election. This needs to be dealt with firmly and swiftly.

I've seen this comparison a lot, Trump/Hitler, but those more knowledgeable in history say Trump = Mussolini. I'm no expert on this, but Trump's handling of the profit driven media is giving me chills. I don't see this playing out well, regardless if the brand of fascism that nay emerge.

Abortion rights to be returned to the states, defunding planned parenthood removing access to cheap/free contraception, removing contraception from Obamacare, are all concerning.

Owning stock in a pipeline that the president has influence over is concerning.

Having investments in Central America and Russia influencing international policy is concerning.

Not using a true blind trust is illegal, as far as I understand.

I could go on, but it would be pages of concerns.

My comment was that we know why it is unfair and we should hold those who are responsible to account for destruction of fairness.

We need to look no further than Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan for dismantling the news accountability. This allowed the Republicans

spouting of nonsense being treated as credible people, and neoliberals are allowed to spread their fake populism too. Advertisers can influence what gets covered, and news presents what gets ratings, rather than being the check and balance it is supposed to be.

How did she get such a poor "brand"

Was it that people who oppose her kept on lying?

 

Nobody seems to have come up with anything she did that's as stupid as, for example Trump's wall, or as dishonest as his claim that he'd build it, followed by his retraction.

 

How come Trump's "brand" survives the fact that he's currently due in court to face rape allegations?

Is it related to the fact that, for example, Fox news the other day, described Trump's fellow racist nutter from he UK (Nigel Farage) as "the leader of the opposition"- even though he's actually the defunct leader of a party with no power?

 

That "branding issue." has a reason- and the reason is election rigging by her opponents.

My comments are unrelated to whether the branding is fair or not. It simply is reality, and Clinton isn't charismatic enough to redeem herself. The world isn't a fair place.

It's important to recognise that the real problem with Trump is that he's a member of his party.

The individual should hardly matter, so perhaps that's why they get chosen for their looks.

 

Also, there's no clear evidence that Hillary is particularly untrustworthy, yet that's the perception.

That suggests that someone is lying about her, and I'm guessing that's not the Democrats.

 

The issue here is one of deliberate deceit.

John, I've said this before, but even if ALL of the criticisms of Clinton were fabricated, she has a branding issue. She is extremely damaged perceptually amongst the electorate. It was (or at least should be obvious now) a terrible idea to prop her up. She only stayed in the running because Trump is the worst candidate to ever run for president.

That being said, there is a lot of very optically bad decision making in regards to the donations to the Clinton Foundation from human rights violators, the appearance of conflict of interest in paid speeches by both herself and Bill, and the collusion between the DNC and the Clinton campaign. I know a lot of people here explained all that away, but even if no prosecutable violations took place, the optics are horrific, and it cost the Dems the election, the house, and the senate. Anyone involved in the debacle should be fired for such poor judgement and performance.

So you believe the FBI read the emails without a warrant?

 

I'm not sure after thinking about it, I know local police do things without a warrant all the time, but this will have a high level of scrutiny. I sit on the fence.

Therefore she must be guilty?

 

The content of the emails is unknown. The only thing we know at this point, the FBI believes there are emails which may or may have not been reviewed in previous investigations. That's it.

 

I have a hard time believing that while looking at the data on the computer no one read anything they didn't have a warrant to. What is on there is a different discussion.

I don't understand the phrase "e-mails on a laptop". Aren't e-mails stored on servers and only accessed from personal computers when a user logs into their account? And 650,000 e-mails!? What provider service allows that measure of storage? Please advise...

My server allows me to archive all my e-mails on my computer, and the server. I don't know how common that is, but that's how mine works.

650,000 suggests purposeful archiving. Why is speculation, but holding on to damning information to use as leverage seems plausible, if not likely.

Would you like to cite examples?

I listed my four biggest concerns in a previous post. Do you need more examples?

Read an intresting example online the other day and it went something like this:

 

Eve - Obama's Affordable care act has many issues that must be addressed and is arguably a failure, the collateral damage from Obama's drone attacks may be war crimes, and our civil liberties are haven't been protected.

 

Adam - Plus Obama is a Muslim.

 

Eve - No, he isn't Muslim.

 

Adam - He wasn't even born in this country.

 

Eve - No, he was born in this country

 

Adam - He wants to take everyones guns.

 

Eve - No, heisn't trying to take everyones guns.

 

Adama - All you do is defend Obama. This conversation is going no where.

I gave you a positive here. I hope you aren't saying I'm presenting bs criticisms, but that the defence against bs can be seen as apologetics. My point is that it does go both ways, paricularily in the Clinton defense, separate from this topic.

While I agree Obama did some great things, he also did some pretty damaging things.

There are legitimate concerns regarding the Obama administration. They include, NSA surveilance, deportations, benefiting from citizens united, and the drone program. Maybe if people on both sides could focus on legitimate concerns, and not dismissing legitimate concerns, there could be an honest discussion regarding politics. I'm finding it difficult to discuss politics here because both sides are so extreme, either explaining everything away as normal, or presenting trumped up garbage regarding things that are a stretch.

I agree it's an optics thing, a perception. It is related to electability and the negativity rating. Whether it's real or not, it is a hurdle for the democrats. If Warren was the nominee, we wouldn't be discussing this issue at all.