The problem of Corporate Democrats and how to kick them out

[NevB]

There have been 1878 posts in this thread.

Lots of accusations against "corporate" Democrats, named and unnamed.
No accusations against Republicans, but if you bring that up you're chased off the thread as being off topic.

So I was wondering.

Do we have a list of Democrats that are NOT considered "corporate" by the posters in this forum ?

They would be the one's no one has heard off because they don't have any money.

[b_lumenkraft]

There have been 1878 posts in this thread.

Lots of accusations against "corporate" Democrats, named and unnamed.
No accusations against Republicans, but if you bring that up you're chased off the thread as being off topic.

So I was wondering.

Do we have a list of Democrats that are NOT considered "corporate" by the posters in this forum ?

You can easily look that up here >> https://www.opensecrets.org/

Also, all Justice Democrats refuse to take corporate money, which makes the selection pretty easy as well.

I for one see contributions from private interest to politicians as corruption.

[Klondike Kat]

There have been 1878 posts in this thread.

Lots of accusations against "corporate" Democrats, named and unnamed.
No accusations against Republicans, but if you bring that up you're chased off the thread as being off topic.

So I was wondering.

Do we have a list of Democrats that are NOT considered "corporate" by the posters in this forum ?

They would be the one's no one has heard off because they don't have any money.

And are if little consequence to the party bosses.

[SteveMDFP]

Do we have a list of Democrats that are NOT considered "corporate" by the posters in this forum ?

They would be the one's no one has heard off because they don't have any money.

A slight exaggeration, with a lot of truth.  An *occasional* candidate, with a lot of charisma and great oratory can get attention and success without tapping such deep pockets.  But it's an uncommon alignment of stars that permits this.

It's pretty rare for me to see mainstream voters actually caring where a given candidate gets his/her campaign money.  It's an obsession, though, for a small group on the left. 

Corporate money doesn't purely flow to candidates to buy them (though this surely happens).  Often, corporate money flows to likely winners, in the hopes of influencing policy in the future.  I think it's a mistake to assume that acceptance of corporate contributions means a politician has been "bought."

The problem isn't so much corrupt politicians as a corrupt system.  They're forced to play by corrupt rules to have much of a hope of having any success at all.

If we're all hoping and praying that the electorate will start studying funding sources for all the various candidates on the ballot, we'll be waiting until hell freezes over.

The focus shouldn't be on culling the bad apples, the focus should be on reforming the system that tends to reward bad apples.

[sidd]

Re: The focus shouldn't be on culling the bad apples, the focus should be on reforming the system that tends to reward bad apples.

The bad apples are in charge of the system. You cannot reform the system without first getting rid of them. The only legal way to get rid of them is to crowdfund challengers. How much has Bernie raised now ?

As for illegal ways to get rid of them, those will be employed when it is clear that legal methods are futile. When you make reasonable change impossible,  unreasonable changes are inevitable. Trump, for example.

sidd

[Neven]

Mustn't talk about bad apples, because the big, bad wolf!

[SteveMDFP]

Re: The focus shouldn't be on culling the bad apples, the focus should be on reforming the system that tends to reward bad apples.

The bad apples are in charge of the system. You cannot reform the system without first getting rid of them. The only legal way to get rid of them is to crowdfund challengers. How much has Bernie raised now ?
. . .
sidd

I think history tells us something different.  There have been many examples of entrenched powers allowing reforms in the direction of better democracy.  (although, not without a demand, as Neven points out).
Originally in the US, only white male landowners could vote.  They allowed their entrenched power to be diluted--first by non-landowners, then women and non-whites.
Used to be that state legislatures appointed members of the Senate.  That entrenched power gave way to election by popular vote.

There's a long history of campaign finance efforts, some successful, some overturned, all of which acted to weaken the power of entrenched interests:

From George Washington to Shaun McCutcheon: A brief-ish history of campaign finance reform.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/03/a-history-of-campaign-finance-reform-from-george-washington-to-shaun-mccutcheon/?utm_term=.cd75aac30b93

So I really don't see that ferreting out the bad apples is an absolute prerequisite to effective reform.  Replacing some of the Supreme Court justices would be extremely helpful, however.

Part of the futility of focusing on individual "bad apples" as I see it, is that it has become impossible to reliably identify bad apples.  Official campaign finances that are reported are now dwarfed by money spent by PACs, Super-PACs, dark money, and independent expenditures.  A candidate could officially eschew all corporate donations but encourage other bodies to spend on his/her behalf.  Though Citizen's United made it very difficult to stop such spending, it did not bar requiring reporting by such organizations and individuals.

I think the only decent barometer of who is a bad apple is by looking at whether their votes support the power of corporate money or whether they act to reform the system.

House Democrats Introduce Anti-Corruption Bill As Symbolic 1st Act
  https://www.npr.org/2019/01/05/682286587/house-democrats-introduce-anti-corruption-bill-as-symbolic-first-act

I think the record of who votes for or against this bill is a far better measure of the bad apples than whatever appears on their campaign finance reports.

[sidd]

Re: Supremes

this is very important. I do not see major change in corporate financing until Citizen's United is overturned. This requires control of white house and senate to change supreme court balance. Long row to hoe, doom may come before then.

Of course one might have consitutional amendment stripping personhood from corprorations, but i fear the republicans are closer to calling one than democrats, as far as state legislature control goes.

sidd

[Neven]

Pelosi, a Republican in sheep's clothing:

[sidd]

A corporate democrat finds religion: Rubin era apologist for oligarchy recants

"Rubin Democrats believe that you should prioritize economic growth."

"We were certainly wrong, 100 percent, on the politics."

"there is no political path to a coalition built from the Rubin-center "

"I’m fundamentally a neoliberal shill."

"I’d say we learned more about the world ... It’s much harder to believe in those things now. That’s one part of it. The world appears to be more like what lefties thought it was than what I thought it was for the last 10 or 15 years. "

No shit, Sherlock. Read the whole thing:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/4/18246381/democrats-clinton-sanders-left-brad-delong

sidd

[sidd]

In case any have forgotten: Taibbi from 2010 on how corporate democrats colluded with republicans to kill financial reform

"But Dodd-Frank was neither an FDR-style, paradigm-shifting reform, nor a historic assault on free enterprise. What it was, ultimately, was a cop-out, a Band-Aid on a severed artery. If it marks the end of anything at all, it represents the end of the best opportunity we had to do something real about the criminal hijacking of America’s financial-services industry. "

"Do we admit that control over the economy in the past dec­ade was ceded to a small group of rapacious criminals who to this day are engaged in a mind-­numbing campaign of theft on a global scale? Or do we pretend that, minus a few bumps in the road that have mostly been smoothed out, the clean-hands capitalism of Adam Smith still rules the day in America? In other words, do people need to know the real version, in all its majestic whorebotchery, or can we get away with some bullshit cover story?"

"In passing Dodd-Frank, they went with the cover story."

 "we were a nation subsisting on an elaborate check-­bouncing scheme ... And it was all made possible by two major deregulatory moves from the Clinton era"

"The story of how the last real shot at reining in Wall Street got routed tells you everything you need to know about how, and on whose behalf, our government works. It was Congress at its most cowardly, deceptive best, with both parties teaming up to subject reform to death by a thousand paper cuts ..."

"Republican and Democratic leaders were working together with industry insiders and deep-pocketed lobbyists to prevent rogue members like Merkley and Levin from effecting real change. In public, the parties stage a show of bitter bipartisan stalemate. But when the cameras are off, they fuck like crazed weasels in heat."

"Democratic leaders had teamed up with Republicans behind closed doors to double-­cross Merkley and Levin."

"Geithner acted almost like a liaison to the financial industry, pushing for Wall Street-friendly changes on everything"

"the Schumer coalition suddenly decided that the de minimis exemption for banks simply wasn’t big enough ...  banks could now put up to 40 percent more into high-risk investments ... For Bank of America alone, it comes to $6 billion."

"the so-called “Lincoln rule,” put forward by Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, which would have forced big banks to spin off their derivatives desks in the same way the Volcker rule would have forced them to give up proprietary trading. Banks would have to make a choice: Either forgo access to the cheap cash of the Federal Reserve, or give up gambling with dangerous instruments like credit-default swaps ... This, obviously, could not be permitted."

"Dodd came up with a hastily composed, five-page substitute to the Lincoln rule that would create a “financial stability” council with the power to unilaterally kill the rule ... Dodd agreed to withdraw his substitute two days before the Senate vote – but given his track record of legislative maneuvering on behalf of big banks, his fellow Democrats weren’t about to take him at his word. A group of senators from Dodd’s own party – including Maria Cantwell of Washington – arranged to stay on the Senate floor in shifts, ensuring that there would be someone there to object in case Dodd tried to push his substitute through ­during one of those quiet, empty-hall, C-SPAN moments when no one was looking.

The fact that a group of Democrats had to come up with a scheme to prevent one of their own leaders from dropping a ­roofie in their legislative drinks pretty much sums up the state of affairs in Congress. "

" a group of 43 conservative House Democrats calling themselves the “New ­Democrat Coalition” refused to support the reform bill unless the toughest part of the Lincoln rule – section 716 – was gutted. "

"The new deal allowed banks to keep their derivatives desks by moving them into subsidiary units and exempted whole classes of derivatives from regulation ... About 90 percent of the derivatives market was exempted."

Read the whole thing: with democrats like these, who needs republicans ?

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/wall-streets-big-win-190723/

That is how the sausage is made.

sidd

[sidd]

Robinson at current affairs on the obama corporate regime:

" but the desire to be “all things to all people” had always been central to the Obama image."

He quotes Taibbi: "…an ingeniously crafted human cipher… a sort of ideological Universalist… who spends a great deal of rhetorical energy showing that he recognizes the validity of all points of view, and conversely emphasizes that when he does take hard positions on issues, he often does so reluctantly… You can’t run against him on issues because you can’t even find him on the ideological spectrum ..."

and Reed: "described the politics of “form over substance” being practiced by a certain “smooth Harvard lawyer with impeccable do-good credentials and vacuous-to-repressive neoliberal politics"

Reed: “Obama’s empty claims to being a candidate of progressive change and to embodying a ‘movement’ that exists only as a brand will dissolve into disillusionment,” and his presidency would “continue the politics he’s practiced his entire career.”

" the Obama staff concludes that Obama is not a “message man,” he’s the “message, man.”  "

“Was it really necessary to flatter these people, just because they were powerful and rich? In a word, yes.”

"He could stand to learn a thing or two from Bernie Sanders, whose approach to this is: The media are going to talk about things that don’t matter. Your job is to talk nonstop about the things that do. "

Read the whole thing:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/the-obama-boys

sidd

[sidd]

Meyer at politico on Warren's feud with the senator from MBNA:

"The credit card giant MBNA—at the time, the third-largest issuer of credit cards—was based in his home state. Its executives and employees were some of Biden’s biggest campaign contributors ... One of Biden’s sons, Hunter, worked at MBNA after graduating from law school and later consulted for the company after a stint in the Commerce Department ... Biden was seen as so close to the company that he felt it necessary to tell the Washington Post at one point that he was “not the senator from MBNA.” "

Biden is a piece of work. Read the whole thing:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/12/biden-vs-warren-2020-democratic-primaries-bankruptcy-bill-225728

sidd

[sidd]

Cockburn at Harper's on Biden:

"Biden has long served as high priest of the doctrine that our legislative problems derive merely from superficial disagreements, rather than fundamental differences over matters of principle. "

" ... the practitioners of bipartisanship conveniently gloss over the more evident reality: that the system is under sustained assault by an ideology bent on destroying the remnants of the New Deal to the benefit of a greed-driven oligarchy. It was bipartisan accord, after all, that brought us the permanent war economy, the war on drugs, the mass incarceration of black people, 1990s welfare “reform,” Wall Street deregulation and the consequent $16 trillion in bank bailouts, the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, and other atrocities too numerous to mention. If the system is indeed broken, it is because interested parties are doing their best to break it."

"Rather than admit this, Biden has long found it more profitable to assert that political divisions can be settled by men endowed with statesmanlike vision and goodwill—in other words, men such as himself."

“Whenever people hear the words ‘drugs’ and ‘crime,’ I want them to think ‘Joe Biden.’”

" they [Thurmond and Biden]  created the infamous disparity in penalties between those caught with powder cocaine (white people) and those carrying crack (black people) ... expanding the practice of civil asset forfeiture, law enforcement’s plunder of property belonging to people suspected of crimes, even if they are neither charged nor convicted."

"As far back as 1978, he helped negotiate a deal rolling back bankruptcy protections for graduates with federal student loans, and in 1984 worked to do the same for borrowers with loans for vocational schools. Even when the ostensible objective lay elsewhere, such as drug-related crime, Biden did not forget his banker friends. Thus the 1990 Crime Control Act, with Biden as chief sponsor, further limited debtors’ ability to take advantage of bankruptcy protections."

"These initiatives, however, were only precursors to the finance lobby’s magnum opus: the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. This carefully crafted flail of the poor made it almost impossible for borrowers to get traditional “clean slate” Chapter 7 bankruptcy, under which debt forgiveness enables people to rebuild their lives and businesses. Instead, the law subjected them to the far harsher provisions of Chapter 13, effectively turning borrowers into indentured servants of institutions like the credit card companies headquartered in Delaware. "

"Biden was among the ninety senators on one of the fatal (to the rest of us) legislative gifts presented to Wall Street back in the Clinton era: the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999. "

"he opined in a 2018 talk at the Brookings Institution, “I don’t think five hundred billionaires are the reason we’re in trouble. The folks at the top aren’t bad guys.” "

"An ardent proponent of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe ... voted enthusiastically to authorize Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, was a major proponent of Clinton’s war in Kosovo, and pushed for military intervention in Sudan."

" his son Hunter’s involvement in that nation’s business affairs via his position on the board of Burisma, a natural gas company owned by a former Ukrainian ecology minister accused by the UK government of stealing at least $23 million of Ukrainian taxpayers’ money."

"Biden’s claims of experience on the world stage, therefore, cannot be denied. True, the experience has been routinely disastrous for those on the receiving end ..."

Fuck Biden. Read the whole thing:

https://harpers.org/archive/2019/03/joe-biden-record/

sidd

[sidd]

Damon at wsws in full cry: the Democratic Party, the rotting corpse of American liberalism.

"the struggle against the Trump administration cannot be based on the Democratic Party, the rotting corpse of American liberalism"

"the Democrats have, on many fundamental issues, formed what amounts to a national unity government with Trump. "

"The Democrats are far more afraid of the growth of the class struggle than they are concerned about whatever factional differences they have with the present occupant of the White House."

"Trump is not an aberration. Rather, his administration expresses the most essential characteristics of the capitalist system. It is one symptom of a far deeper disease, of which his opponents within the political establishment are another."

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/03/25/pers-m25.html

sidd

[Neven]

So, how do people now feel about the Corporate Democrats' brilliant strategy of blaming Russia for Trump's election (instead of taking a hard look in the mirror) and putting all of the eggs in the Russiagate basket? I've been reading through the Russia-thread, and it seems the distraction worked flawlessly. I reproach myself for not having taken action earlier against all the fake news that was spread to inflate an illusion.

https://therealnews.com/stories/deep-faith-in-the-deep-state-gives-dems-a-set-back

[ritter]

So, how do people now feel about the Corporate Democrats' brilliant strategy of blaming Russia for Trump's election (instead of taking a hard look in the mirror) and putting all of the eggs in the Russiagate basket?

Pretty poor decision. Trump represents the dissatisfaction with the status quo in American politics and the Corporate Dems have done nothing to address it. I'm still waiting for the Dems to come up with a platform I can vote for rather than a "we're not Trump" focus. It's looking like I'll be waiting a while. I fully expect Trump will carry 2020, unfortunately.

[Susan Anderson]

So, how do people now feel about the Corporate Democrats' brilliant strategy of blaming Russia for Trump's election (instead of taking a hard look in the mirror) and putting all of the eggs in the Russiagate basket?

Pretty poor decision. Trump represents the dissatisfaction with the status quo in American politics and the Corporate Dems have done nothing to address it. I'm still waiting for the Dems to come up with a platform I can vote for rather than a "we're not Trump" focus. It's looking like I'll be waiting a while. I fully expect Trump will carry 2020, unfortunately.

Wow! Firstly, @Neven, Democrats are not focusing on Trump. You are sadly misled.

@Ritter: So Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Jay Inslee (and others) are not good enough for you? You're a lost cause, since someone to the left of these, and more against corporate warmongering, has to be all about the conspiracy, nothing but the conspiracy, first last and always.

[sidd]

Senators propose sanctions on VZ: some of them are democrats

 Menendez, Dick Durbin, Ben Cardin, Tim Kaine, Jeanne Shaheen, Michael Bennet and Chris Coons.

I think Cardin, Shaheen and Coons are coming up for relection. Anyone primarying them ?

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-venezuela-politics-usa/u-s-senators-propose-more-aid-international-sanctions-for-venezuela-idUKKCN1RF2G1

sidd

[ritter]

@Ritter: So Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Jay Inslee (and others) are not good enough for you? You're a lost cause, since someone to the left of these, and more against corporate warmongering, has to be all about the conspiracy, nothing but the conspiracy, first last and always.

Lost cause? No, I'm principled and expect such out of my leadership. I'm sick to death of rich white people telling everyone else what's best for them while they line their campaign coffers and pockets with corporate donation from big oil/pharma, etc. When, precisely, is the last time anyone in our leadership had to worry about the mortgage payment, health care bill, retirement, college expenses, etc.? How can they possibly know what us commoners "need" when they want for nothing? Christ, they can't even manage meaningful support for the concept of the Green New Deal. We are going to doom our future generations to hell on Earth and the dems can't be bothered. Not today, money to be made.

Obama was the last good hope of a president that had any connection to the realities of every day life for Americans and he was largely a failure. Don't get me wrong, I still voted for him, supported him and loved to hear him speak. But he he kept to the corporate dem agenda.

I will get in line and vote for the dem candidate simply out of the I can't stomach Trump perspective. I voted Sanders in the last primary and held my nose for Clinton. But I'll be damned if I sit quietly about it.

Give me a candidate that will put working on the environment, securing social equity for all, providing affordable health care and education as top priorities. You know, those things the people running in 2018 went on about. And what has been their primary focus since the "blue wave"? Fucking gun control (a media/politician created boogieman that does not solve the underlying problems of suicide and violence in our sick society) and screeching about Trump/Russia/Mueller (talk about "conspiracy" that helps no one--work on some policy instead to mitigate the damage he's doing).

Corporate dems are like voting for an incremental improvement in the number of crumbs that fall off the table when your kids are hungry and begging below it. Yeah, it's better than the alternative but it still sucks. Does wishing for more than that make me a lost cause?

(btw, I always enjoy your posts, so please don't take any of the above personally.)

[interstitial]

@Ritter: So Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Jay Inslee (and others) are not good enough for you? You're a lost cause, since someone to the left of these, and more against corporate warmongering, has to be all about the conspiracy, nothing but the conspiracy, first last and always.

Lost cause? No, I'm principled and expect such out of my leadership. I'm sick to death of rich white people telling everyone else what's best for them while they line their campaign coffers and pockets with corporate donation from big oil/pharma, etc. When, precisely, is the last time anyone in our leadership had to worry about the mortgage payment, health care bill, retirement, college expenses, etc.? How can they possibly know what us commoners "need" when they want for nothing? Christ, they can't even manage meaningful support for the concept of the Green New Deal. We are going to doom our future generations to hell on Earth and the dems can't be bothered. Not today, money to be made.

Obama was the last good hope of a president that had any connection to the realities of every day life for Americans and he was largely a failure. Don't get me wrong, I still voted for him, supported him and loved to hear him speak. But he he kept to the corporate dem agenda.

I will get in line and vote for the dem candidate simply out of the I can't stomach Trump perspective. I voted Sanders in the last primary and held my nose for Clinton. But I'll be damned if I sit quietly about it.

Give me a candidate that will put working on the environment, securing social equity for all, providing affordable health care and education as top priorities. You know, those things the people running in 2018 went on about. And what has been their primary focus since the "blue wave"? Fucking gun control (a media/politician created boogieman that does not solve the underlying problems of suicide and violence in our sick society) and screeching about Trump/Russia/Mueller (talk about "conspiracy" that helps no one--work on some policy instead to mitigate the damage he's doing).

Corporate dems are like voting for an incremental improvement in the number of crumbs that fall off the table when your kids are hungry and begging below it. Yeah, it's better than the alternative but it still sucks. Does wishing for more than that make me a lost cause?

(btw, I always enjoy your posts, so please don't take any of the above personally.)

I am a poor white male with no power or influence and all the crap in our screwed up society is my fault. To be clear I know you didn't mention gender but it is often included.

I wasn't mentored by anyone really let alone someone successful. I didn't get any opportunities to do anything interesting growing up, that was for school districts with money. I didn't have any time or money to join the clubs at school. My best role model was my father who only knew how to work too hard for too little money. I rarely saw him growing up because he was always working. When I am employed, I work too hard for too little money. I did what I was suposed to I got a degree in the sciences and now I am unemployed and in debt.


I will admit that most of the rich and powerful in the US are white males. It is also true historically that it was harder or even impossible for others to become rich or powerful in this country. In my opinion it is now harder and nearly impossible for anyone to move up the socioeconomic ladder.  They rich and powerful do what they can to gain more wealth and power which comes at the expense of everyone else. Bit bit the wealthy are squeezing everyone they can. That isn't new but the middle class shrinking is. So it is harder for anyone to remain in or attain middle class status. You are being oppressed by the rich and powerful but calling them white implies that at least most whites are complicit. You may disagree but I don't think that is true. As a white male I don't get any benefit from this oppression nor do I agree with it so I ask why associate me with it?

I highlighted the bit about Obama because it seems to me you imply that he gets a pass but only because he is African-American. Maybe I interpreted that wrong but if not that seems very messed up to me.

I hope this post doesn't antagonize or offend anyone, unless you are rich and powerful. I just tire of being associated with rich and powerful people, that make me so angry, just because most are the same race or gender as I am.

Other then the race issue I agree with the rest of your post.

[sidd]

Waitaminnit:

The original by ritter was:

" I'm sick to death of rich white people telling everyone else what's best for them while they line their campaign coffers and pockets"

interstitial :

"You are being oppressed by the rich and powerful but calling them white implies that at least most whites are complicit. "

how so ? there are two qualifying adjectives on "people" not just one. Some or all of those who are both "rich" and "white" are the oppressor (as in " telling everyone else what's best for them while they line their campaign coffers and pockets") 

Not just "white." So it's perfectly possible for a "white" person to be oppressed if he is not "rich" and perhaps if he is "rich"  as well.

Of course, i must say i disagree that some or all of just "rich white" people are the oppressor. I have been in enuf places on this green earth to know that there are oppressors everywhere of every color, gender and religion. Some are not "rich" either, but i must admit most are, and male to boot. In the USA, they are still mostly white, but that is changing.

sidd

[Neven]

It's about class, not about race.

[Susan Anderson]

@Neven & @ritter

There is nothing inherently wrong with any race or people who are luckier in life's lottery. I'm for more sharing and for getting together to solve problems.

I am soooooo cheered by AOC and I love Elizabeth Warren, and there are a good few others (listened to Maxine Waters tonight). It reminds me that out of evil can come good, though I don't have much hope that the skilled and principled Warren can win. I have always worked closely (as employee, colleague, and boss) with people of color, and I tend to set aside my inborn tendency to notice differences and deal with the person, rich or poor, yellow, brown, white (or green). People of color are often excellent bosses, more broad-minded but fiercely loyal to their own, which is not surprising given what they've always had to endure. It's a bit early to be fighting fiercely about 20 months from now (only in the US are elections so long, disgusting waste of money and energy).

I'm just finishing Steven Stoll's Ramp Hollow about Appalachia and subsistence farming and the history of capital and money, and it's discouraging. Trouble is, no matter what system you prefer, the cheaters and exploiters are bound to find a way to game the system.

We take too much for granted.

[interstitial]

Sidd
while you are technically correct about their being two qualifying adjectives when they are repeated together often enough subconsciously they become linked. African Americans continue to struggle against their association with poverty. To some white is being equated with privilege. I am sure to some I am commenting about nothing but as Neven said so succinctly "Its about class, not about race."

[ritter]

@interstitial
No, I was not implying race with my example of Obama. I am implying an elite social economic status (of which he was not a member when originally elected) of predominantly white men do not represent the vast majority of us or have any understanding of what middle class struggles are like, let alone the poor.

@Susan
AOC is a perfect example of what I seek. While she doesn't represent all of my values, she is as close a fit as I am like to find. She is intelligent, speaks her mind, has roots in the "real people" and understands the challenges facing them (even if she does not have the solutions, she's willing to discuss the problems with vigor). And what do the corporate dems do with her? Pat her on the head, say "that's nice dear, now go sit in the corner and STFU." Why? because the things she challenges put at risk the corporate money. The spice must flow, as they say.

[Susan Anderson]

@ritter
You guys have a fixation on "corporate dems". You're out of date and distorting as well. Dems have been out of power. Nancy Pelosi is a great example of a good 'un. Blaming victims is not helpful. You have no idea what these people would do if they could. You appear to need to blame somebody, and as a result are looking away from the real villains.

This is not completely OT, since y'all are too busy attacking our allies to notice our enemies who do this kind of thing. It's hopefully weird and awful enough to get your attention about what is really going on. I've extracted the whole text, since access to NYTimes is somewhat paywalled (limited # of aticles per month):
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/05/opinion/sex-women-facts-education.html

America’s Leaders Need Sex Ed: For those who want to regulate women’s bodies, ignorance has been no obstacle.

A few recent news stories have served as reminders that an awful lot of people lack even a basic understanding of the female body. And some of those people get to make and shape our laws.

There was the lawyer in Alabama who tried to justify an extreme anti-abortion bill that he helped draft by arguing that after a man and a woman have sex, “you can take her straight into a clinic and determine an egg and sperm came together.”

That’s not medically possible. Even the most sensitive pregnancy test won’t come back positive until an embryo is implanted in the uterus, which typically happens a week or more after fertilization. So the idea that any woman would be able to get an abortion within two weeks of fertilization — the cutoff under the Alabama bill — is preposterous.

Maybe not everyone learns the mechanics of early pregnancy in ninth-grade biology class. But it’s reasonable to expect that someone trying to legislate what pregnant people can do with their bodies would have a better grasp on the matter. (He might also want to consider the logistics of sending millions of women for in-clinic pregnancy tests immediately after they have sex. But that’s a story for another day.)

Then there was the member of Maine’s House of Representatives who said that giving incarcerated women an adequate supply of menstrual products would make prisons akin to “country clubs.”

Beyond the questions this raises about what he thinks goes on at country clubs, it’s disturbing that an adult male doesn’t seem to know what tampons and pads do. As so many of us are intimately aware, these products are not luxury items, but rather an absolute necessity for anyone who’s menstruating.

The bad news for the rest of us is that these guys are hardly alone in trying to legislate aspects of human bodies that they do not understand.

There was the lawmaker in Idaho who asked at a legislative hearing whether a woman could get a gynecological exam by swallowing a tiny camera. (No more than a dentist can do her job by looking at your feet.)

And the Texas state representative who seemed to think that abortion providers cut into women’s bodies. (That’s a cesarean section.)

And the other Texas lawmaker who said that while getting a rape kit exam, “the woman can get cleaned out” to end her pregnancy. (That’s not what rape kits are for.)

And, of course, this infamous observation from Todd Akin, then a Missouri congressman: “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” (Where even to begin?)

And last month President Trump mused about Central American migrants heading to the United States: “Mothers who love their daughters give them massive amounts of birth control pills, because they know their daughters are going to be raped.” (That is ... not how birth control works.)

This is without even getting into politicians’ misguided notions about comprehensive sex education, their insistence that the morning-after pill and intrauterine devices cause abortions and their curious views about birth control in general. (“Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s O.K., contraception is O.K. It’s not O.K,” said Rick Santorum, the former Republican senator from Pennsylvania, in 2011. “It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”)

As members of the anti-abortion movement have sought increasingly extreme restrictions on the procedure — and have rolled back access to contraception and other health services — their justifications have become further removed from science and fact. It would be naïve to think that giving every elected official a copy of “Our Bodies, Ourselves” would change that.

But facts do still matter. And it sure wouldn’t hurt for more people in power to learn about the bodies they’re trying to regulate.

Nor would it hurt for supporters of reproductive freedom to remember they’re fighting a war on multiple fronts — and ignorance about women’s bodies is one of them.

[Neven]

That's true. It's about class, not about race. And it's also very much about race. Take a trip to the USA and see for yourself.

Sure, racism still exists (always will), and race is used as a political tool. To protect the wealth of the top class.

[magnamentis]

That's true. It's about class, not about race. And it's also very much about race. Take a trip to the USA and see for yourself.

Sure, racism still exists (always will), and race is used as a political tool. To protect the wealth of the top class.

while racism by it's original definition is evil, the fact that expressing differences between ethnic groups and try to fathom out where on or another such group could further improve on their path of evolution, and that includes our own "race", probably even especially so, is not possible under the current regime of political correctness = hypocrisy = diplomacy = lies etc.

that will sooner or later lead to extreme and violent discharges of stored energy/frustration/fear etc.

apparently, when looking at "brexit main reasons", trumpistan, hungary, poland, crimea events etc. we shall probably have to deal more with the "very soon" side.

in other words, oppressing facts postpones solutions into a far future while the longer we postpone the more the pendulum shall swing to the other side.

one can see this "black and white" thinking, and i don't mean skin color but generally, in each public discussion, even on this forum.

I.e. in the tesla glory/failure thread where each side is apparently refusing to either consider both side's reasons and/or refuses to admit that the other side has valid reasons as well.

a 100% non-racist is only who shall drop of the subway in chicago, coming from the airport riding into the financial district, 2 stations two early and enjoy that environment without fast escape back into the tunnel

"AS ONE EXAMPLE ONLY" (most if not all example are limping, i know)

[kassy]

How do you figure out how you can´improve on <your or anyone´s > path of evolution if you can not see the future?

Let´s ignore the low hanging fruit like not destroying the only place we can live. (But interestingly that is all behaviour isn´t it? ).

[Klondike Kat]

So I rhetorically ask, where else in the world is Race and Religion (being a proxy for Race in most cases) look like it is in the USA?

Nowhere, of course.  The closest comparisons are probably Canada and Switzerland, which are more racially diverse, but less so religiously.

[ritter]

@ritter You're out of date and distorting as well. Dems have been out of power. Nancy Pelosi is a great example of a good 'un. Blaming victims is not helpful. You have no idea what these people would do if they could. You appear to need to blame somebody, and as a result are looking away from the real villains.

I'm out of date? Since when are we not allowed to criticize our elected representatives? They are supposed to represent us, remember? Who's the victim? The Dem party again doing the exact thing they did to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with Clinton in 2016? If that's the case, yeah, I blame them. You think I should just throw my support at them and give them a big pat on the back?

The day we stop criticizing our leadership to focus solely on the "villain" is the day we are no different from the current administration and GOP. Is that what you seek?

As I noted earlier, the current democratic party is better than the republicans. However, incrementalism will not get us where we wish to be (unless the state of the nation in 2016 is acceptable to you). We are out of time if we wish to preserve the climate we evolved in.

[Susan Anderson]

@ritter

It's a one way street, isn't it? Criticize, don't listen, and then claim you're the one not allowed to speak. It's a complete waste of time. Just like climate denial, as I said. Bias promoting bias.

I will continue to post information that interrupts the backslapping and represents other points of view, though you've mostly shut down anyone who speaks up. That's why I posted the sex education post, in the hopes that some cognitive dissonance would break in to the "choir". In the meanwhile, you are welcome to help disable the opposition to real bad guys and blame those who are trying against the odds to promote progressive progress. Trumpistan loves you!

[Neven]

Susan, could you please stay on topic? You can't beat the real villains as long as the 'good uns' control the Democratic Party.

[ritter]

@ritter

It's a one way street, isn't it? Criticize, don't listen, and then claim you're the one not allowed to speak. It's a complete waste of time. Just like climate denial, as I said. Bias promoting bias.

Huh? There's no ear wax in my ears, Susan. It is not comforting to hear you think challenging leadership is a complete waste of time. Perhaps that is why we are where we are today. Complacent and complicit.

@ritter
in the hopes that some cognitive dissonance would break in to the "choir". In the meanwhile, you are welcome to help disable the opposition to real bad guys and blame those who are trying against the odds to promote progressive progress. Trumpistan loves you!

You go ahead and circle those wagons, then, Susan. I'm counting on you and more of the same that lost 2016 to take Trump down in 2020. I'm sure it will work, this time.

[sidd]

Manchin on Assange: "he's our property"

"Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin on Thursday celebrated the arrest of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange ..."

"Manchin, along with nine of his Democratic colleagues, had signed a letter to Vice President Mike Pence last June, expressing concern about Ecuador providing asylum to Assange since 2012."

"Mark Warner said his hope is that British courts will "quickly transfer" Assange to US custody "

"Ben Sasse, another member of the Intelligence Committee, said Assange's arrest is "good news for freedom-loving people."  "

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/11/politics/joe-manchin-wikileaks-julian-assange-cnntv/index.html

Manchin. Warner. Sasse. Remember those names. And the rest:

"Joining Menendez in sending the letter were Senators: Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Michael Bennet (D-Col.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), and Mark Warner (D-Va.)."

https://www.menendez.senate.gov/news-and-events/press/in-advance-of-vp-pences-trip-to-ecuador-menendez-leads-letter-encouraging-advancement-of-bilateral-relations-and-expressing-concern-about-continued-support-for-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange

sidd

[b_lumenkraft]

Yeah, the red scare is still alive and well.

The most wealthy nation on the planet with the biggest military budget pissing their pants when someone tells their dirty secrets.

Sovereignty works differently in my mind, but ok.

[Neven]

Assange is a litmus test for liberals/progressives/lefties, both the politicians and the voters.

[Rob Dekker]

Assange is a litmus test for liberals/progressives/lefties, both the politicians and the voters.

Neven, I'm a liberal/progressive/leftie and I think Assange should face his day in court.
If he did nothing wrong, he will be set free.

Is that what you mean with the 'litmus test' ?

[Neven]

Yes, you obviously fail it. But we knew that already.

[Neven]

For those who think they are liberals/progressives/lefties, but aren't (because they really aren't, or because massive brainwashing by corporate media makes it impossible for their brains to think things through), Paul Jay explains what the problem is with Assange's arrest. There's a book tip for Rob, right at the very beginning of the video. I'll post some pertinent quotes later today:

[magnamentis]

For those who think they are liberals/progressives/lefties, but aren't (because they really aren't, or because massive brainwashing by corporate media makes it impossible for their brains to think things through), Paul Jay explains what the problem is with Assange's arrest. There's a book tip for Rob, right at the very beginning of the video. I'll post some pertinent quotes later today:

great find, thanks for posting this, not that anything is new but it's always good to see some clear-minded analysis and that there are people who name things as what they are and that one can have hope that no matter how many heads are cut of the "Hydra" there will hopefully always be some left and some re-grow to follow things up.

in this context i'd like to post the following:

The lie says to the truth: "Today is a wonderful day"!

The truth looks up into the sky and sighs, because the day was really beautiful. They spent a lot of time together and finally arrive next to a well.

The lie says to the truth, "The water looks very nice, let's bathe together!"

The truth, skeptical at first, tests the water and discovers that it is really very nice. They undress and start bathing.

Suddenly the lie leaves the water, puts on the clothes of the truth and runs away. The angry truth comes out of the well and runs everywhere to find the lie and get her clothes back.

Now that the whole world sees the truth naked, all turn their eyes away with contempt and anger, while the poor truth returns to the well and disappears forever, hiding it's grief.

Since then, the lie disguised as the truth wanders over the earth and satisfies the needs of society, because people have no desire to meet and look at the naked truth

[Rob Dekker]

Assange is a litmus test for liberals/progressives/lefties, both the politicians and the voters.

Neven, I'm a liberal/progressive/leftie and I think Assange should face his day in court.
If he did nothing wrong, he will be set free.

Is that what you mean with the 'litmus test' ?

Yes, you obviously fail it. But we knew that already.

I'm a Bernie supporter, Neven.

Did Bernie pass your test yet ?

If not, who (of US politicians) did ?

[Neven]

I'm a Bernie supporter, Neven.

Did Bernie pass your test yet ?

No, not yet. And if he doesn't, it's because he has to pander to people like you, or because he's compromised. It's not easy to do what he's trying to do in a fascist deep state, with such a large part of the population brainwashed by corporate mainstream media.

If not, who (of US politicians) did ?

As far as I have seen, only Gabbard and Gravel. Maybe Rand Paul,I don't know. AOC said she's worried about what this means for journalism, but she's also clearly careful about how she speaks her mind, as she knows that so many on the 'left' are war-lovers who believe 100% in American exceptionalism.

If someone mentions the chilling effect this stuff has on freedom of the press, they pass my test more or less. But I'd rather see them denounce the whole thing, because again, they're helping instead of resisting Trump.

[Rob Dekker]

I'm a Bernie supporter, Neven.

Did Bernie pass your test yet ?

No, not yet. And if he doesn't, it's because he has to pander to people like you, or because he's compromised. It's not easy to do what he's trying to do in a fascist deep state, with such a large part of the population brainwashed by corporate mainstream media.

Have you considered the possibility that maybe it's not the mainstream media and the entire population of the USA, but instead YOU are the one who is brainwashed ?

I mean "fascist deep state" ?
Are you serious ?

[Susan Anderson]

I have very little appetite for the single minded bullying that claims I'm trying to attack the "free speech" of the clique that dominates here. We get that from White Nationalists here.

But I did come across a good quote to share. It's why so many people trying to present other valid views here have given up (including, mostly, myself). The multiple attack posts here are not coming from me, but from people who wish to silence voices that correct the group view. It does, in fact, closely resemble the likes of WattsUpWithThat on climate, embracing anything that agrees with the bias, and rejecting anything that provides a wider view and critical thinking.

the story, like so many Trump-era stories, is a trap: questioning the assumption would have led journalists down the slippery slope of arguing about facts, denying outrageous claims that shouldn’t be given the time it takes to deny them.

--
I'm not saying there's not plenty of blame to go around, just that it's important to acknowledge that the situation we inherited cannot be fixed overnight, or possibly at all, since it derives from centuries and millenia of human experience. We need a community of good people, not the tiny fraction of perfectionists who don't acknowledge their own shortcomings (everyone living participates in modern comforts that exploit the earth and the poor, though some are trying harder than others to grow out of it). The introduction of wage slavery, for example, traces back to the origins of money and growth of populations. I suggest for the thoughtful reader the book Ramp Hollow by Steven Stoll.

Blaming victims gives power to oppressors.

[Neven]

Susan, it feels as if you're involved with heated debates in other places, Twitter or what have you, and then you come here and you still feel persecuted by a crowd of people. Or maybe you feel there are Russians under your bed. Either way, it's a very small group of people that is dishing it out in these threads, so please keep the paranoia in check.

To get back on-topic: Are you too cheering for Assange's arrest?

Edit: Just re-read your comment, so let me add that Corporate Democrats aren't victims. They really aren't. They're just a huge hindrance to taking on Trump and the GOP in a way that may win (unlike the neoliberal, third way, meritocratic BS that is so easy to beat through populism), or a shield, one might say. They'd rather lose to Trump than let someone like Sanders or Warren win.

[sidd]

Democrats pledge not to take corp money; take it anyway.

"have found a broad loophole"

Nothing to see here. These are not corporate dollars. Go about you business, citizen.

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/13/democrats-corporate-pac-money/

sidd

[Neven]

Have you considered the possibility that maybe it's not the mainstream media and the entire population of the USA, but instead YOU are the one who is brainwashed ?

Yes, entirely possible. I'm well aware of my limitations. My type of brain can only go so far.

But I'm basing what I say on the writings and words of people that to me score very high on things like wisdom and integrity, so many of them, and what they're saying makes so much sense, that it can't all be wrong.

For instance, I'm in the process of translating a Dutch TV report on 'bullshit jobs', and they interview this anthropologist who says this:

Former left-wing parties, like the Labour Party in the UK or the Democrats in the US, which had a working-class base, increasingly made a conscious decision, essentially, to ditch the working class as their primary support and go for the support of the, what might be called the professional managerial or techno-managerial classes. Professionals, you know, doctors, lawyers, hospital administrators, bureaucrats, people like that (N: like Rob Dekker) became the core constituencies of left-wing parties. Why do you think the workers are increasingly voting right? Because they resent being ditched.

video of the Gilets Jaunes

You know, someone like Macron is a classic centrist and represents the techno-managerial classes, that are essentially in alliance with the financial classes, the Clintons, the Blairites, all of those guys. They're technocrats, they think everything is a solution that should be solved by experts. So, they don't really believe in democracy at all, they think most people are stupid (N: like Martin Gisser). And those classes are the ones which are represented as the reasonable left, but in fact, what they represent, is a kind of a horrific fusion of bureaucracy and markets, the worst of all possible worlds. Which is nonetheless foisted on us as the only alternative to fascism (N: like Susan Anderson).

I mean "fascist deep state" ?
Are you serious ?

Yes, very serious. Have you seen who your president is? Are you aware of the history of your intelligence agencies? Do you know that your country has started illegal wars around the world, is still engaged in them, and pushes for new ones? Do you know that your country hosts the largest penal colony in the world, consisting mostly of males from ethnic minorities for minor offenses? Do you know that you are effectively living in a surveillance state? Do you know that the influence of corporate entities on your government and politics is so large that it's really difficult to deny the fascismness?

Just the fact that you are living the American Dream, doesn't mean you do not live in a fascist deep state. As a self-proclaimed progressive lefty, it should be so easy for you to acknowledge this, or to acknowledge the point and add some context or nuance. But you can't, because you're not a progressive/lefty. You're that guy from the techno-managerial class who gets rewarded so handsomely by the system and Democrats are pandering to, instead of to the majority of the US, the workers and the poor.

The silence on Assange is deafening. God, it's so easy for Corporate Democrats to block any meaningful change, with so many cowards around. Especially the old ones, as they don't have anything to lose, even though they gained so much from the system that will make the lives of those who come behind them, misery.

[sidd]

"Former left-wing parties, like the Labour Party in the UK or the Democrats in the US, which had a working-class base, increasingly made a conscious decision, essentially, to ditch the working class as their primary support and go for the support of the, what might be called the professional managerial or techno-managerial classes. Professionals, you know, doctors, lawyers, hospital administrators, bureaucrats, people like that (N: like Rob Dekker) became the core constituencies of left-wing parties. Why do you think the workers are increasingly voting right? Because they resent being ditched."

This is comprehensively addressed by Piketty, as i have posted before.

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Piketty2018PoliticalConflict.pdf

I attach grafs for France,UK,US, but read the whole thing.

But more to the point: educated professional classes have no solidarity with the working classes. They don't give a shit as long as they get theirs. A few might donate to their local charities, wash their hands and call it a day. But just try to put a homeless shelter or lo income housing in their neighbourhoods, and watch the fun. Hell some of them don't even want a bus line. Where there is a busline, they dont even want shelters for the waiting passengers. The wrong kind of people might show up.

I have, for my sins, undergone higher education, and I retain many friends among the highly educated. It is quite amazing to see them decry right and left wing populism, and yet furiously defend their own living spaces from contamination by the lower classes. How in the world do they think that populist sentiment arises ? That is a wilful blindness that will doom them.

No wonder the guy on the street says fuck it, throws over the table and burns the place down.

sidd