Sounds like their complaints about Moser are the exact reason why Bernie didn't win the Democratic primary in the first place, which is that he was tone-deaf to anything that didn't relate 100% to economics, which is viewed as suspect by the main constituency in the Democratic Party, which is minority women. And she is going to get tagged as a carpetbagger, since she just moved back there in 2017. Whether or not that means she can't win is up in the air.
It is highly unlikely that she wins the primary.
*************
@booinyoureyes That second article, from the Atlantic, is a good read.
*************
Don't forget--many Democrats were also on board with the TPP, which was about as "anti-little guy" a piece of legislation as you can imagine. This isn't to say that I excuse Republicans, of course--they are not the party of "middle class America" as they claim. My wife keeps suggesting that I come down to their meetings (she is an officer in the local Republican Party) but I keep telling her "no". I cannot in good conscience give them my support...but I am running out of different ways to tell her "no, thank you".
*************
Oh, yes, I almost forgot--the Oscars are tonight. Seriously, who gives a flying **** about the Oscars?
@booinyoureyes those articles were interesting to read! Good perspective of the "moderate" view. Of course, I bounced hard off of the conclusions and disagree with many of the fundamental points of logic. Aside from progressive views, for example, I have a great interest in MMT- which is actually apolitical, even though it certainly mixes well. There is quite a bit of overlap with libertarians- an admin of FB groups for MMT says he was a libertarian before finding it. I believe there are a lot of possibilities to reach consensus and compromises with this knowledge. On top of that, it is an analysis of how the system already operates and not based on any ideology.
I also have a fundamental difference with the idea that compromise and bipartisanship are necessarily good. I disagree with the author's premise or implications that this is how it is intended to operate. Authoritarianism is certainly efficient, but not very palatable for me.
I don't know who cares about the Oscars, but I do know that tomorrow morning right-wing media, like clockwork every year, will use the Oscars promoting diversity to go on a rampage related to their revanchist crusade. As if the massive financial success of "Get Out" and the half BILLION dollar domestic box office of "Black Panther" would give them any reason NOT to promote diversity. Because this is what happens when the right-wing in this country is in power. When they can't attack a Democrat in the White House, they immediately shift to attacking the "culture".
And, as I've said before, once people stop flocking to the multiplex, renting Redbox multiple times a week, and stop subscribing to Netflix, then I'll take the much ballyhooed hatred of "Hollywood elites" seriously. Until then, not a chance. Much like people aren't really prepared to give up their cheap consumer goods that are a result of free trade, they also are not willing to give up their entertainment options.
About diversity, i don't see any problem with diversity, except when they try IMPOSE diversity. The Kingdom Come: Deliverance is a historical accurate game based on medieval Bohemia and SJW's are complaining because the lack of "diversity". Same for Witcher 3. Is a Polish cultural game(except that Witcher 3 is fantasy). There are a lot of different african cultures and history to explore. Why not create a game based on that? And yes, will be ridiculous if Vikings appears in ancient china game/movie.
Now everything is racism, I was called "racist" only because i found blonde woman pretty attractive and no, i an not blonde. My hair was blonde during my childhood but unfortunately become darker and darker. I tried everything, even chamomile but din't worked. Is impossible to choose like or dislike something or someone.
@booinyoureyes those articles were interesting to read! Good perspective of the "moderate" view. Of course, I bounced hard off of the conclusions and disagree with many of the fundamental points of logic. Aside from progressive views, for example, I have a great interest in MMT- which is actually apolitical, even though it certainly mixes well. There is quite a bit of overlap with libertarians- an admin of FB groups for MMT says he was a libertarian before finding it. I believe there are a lot of possibilities to reach consensus and compromises with this knowledge. On top of that, it is an analysis of how the system already operates and not based on any ideology.
I also have a fundamental difference with the idea that compromise and bipartisanship are necessarily good. I disagree with the author's premise or implications that this is how it is intended to operate. Authoritarianism is certainly efficient, but not very palatable for me.
'Delay is preferable to error' -Thomas Jefferson
I think there are two definitions of "moderate", and that people are too quick to use them interchangeably.
One form of moderation is having the same hodgepodge of views on issues as the "median American". I'd prefer to call this "ideologically moderate".
The other form of moderation is being willing to make compromises due to an understanding that we live in a diverse and pluralistic society. I'd call this a "political moderate".
I am not an ideological moderate by any means. I have generally classical liberal views on the issues, which separates me from the median American in many areas. However, I would consider myself a political moderate (though I certainly didn't used to be). I value the long term stability and durability of important institutions, and I don't think they can survive if people are looking to destroy the other side. This means I favor both compromise and temperance.
I think some ideological moderates arrive there through careful consideration, while others (and I hate to say this) are just not very contemplative and arrive at their outlook through gut instinct. I think Trump is very much in this vein in that he, immigration politics aside, has views that the "man on the street" may share. This includes waffling on some issues- polling show that Americans go back and forth on several issues (for example, gun control following a horrific shooting).
However, Trump is incredibly intemperate, and for all his talk of deal-making is far from a political moderate. This is the kind of moderation I think that disciplined political parties might instill in candidates that would allow for better governance. The moderation I call for isn't necessarily ideological moderation, but political moderation (though I will grant you that some degree of ideological moderation would follow from political moderation).
At its best, political moderation can achieve solutions that are ideologically driven, but still palatable to the side who "lost" on the issue.
Jimmy Dore typically mirrors my thoughts about why I don't support moderates (and is more interesting than the Oscars)...
[whoops video had some language at the end... removed]
@booinyoureyes Basically what you describe is what I would consider pragmatism (or perhaps less flatteringly- expedient). I'm not sure what an ideological moderate would look like, or what issues the "median American" would consist of. Everyone falls on the spectrum somewhere. The data doesn't really help much- most voters are independents of one form or another. I am an independent, but my views are strongly progressive, for example. It sounds more like an attempt to claim that most Americans are "centrist", which I would not agree with. Certainly the unpopularity of the two major parties, and neoliberalism in general, would indicate that this is not true. I think ideological moderates ARE centrist, but I don't think that is representative of the mainstream "median American" set of values overall.
So anti-immigrant alt-rightish parties did better than expected in Italy.
People want change, they've been convinced that what they have isn't good enough or that poor people are the cause of their problems, while the rich run off with their money. Foolishly overlooking that things can get worse.
They been hoodwinked and made a mistake. If it's like the US, they were fooled by "populists" who only want to rob the country for their own benefit. They are even saying "Italy first" and if the EU doesn't break to their childish whims then they might want to "italiexit". Which would weaken the EU. Which would further empower Russia and China.
Have they learned nothing from conartists Mussolini and Berlusconi?
Former Trump aide Sam Nunberg had what can only be described as a total mental breakdown on no less than 3 cable news programs this afternoon, in which he not only said he is refusing to turn over his emails to the special counsel, but literally threatened to rip up the subpoena on live television.
Actually, that is a legitimate and valid response to a subpoena. It isn't a *wise* response but you can definitely rip them into little pieces in defiance. They will still come arrest you afterwards, but at least you have the satisfaction of ripping the paper.
He is also correct in that the Mueller Investigation cannot *make* him talk. Of course, this means he will probably wind up in jail for some form of obstruction, but they definitely cannot force him to say anything. It's his choice--let's see if he is ready to accept the consequences of those choices.
Nunberg is no fan of Trump but I guess he recognizes a witch hunt when he sees it.
Not surprising Italy's anti-EU parties won a major victory, they are some of the worst hit by the EU's mass importation of economic migrants policy. It's also consistent with the pattern we've been seeing with growing nationalist sentiment in Germany, France, etc. Lega Nord did as well as the Democrats, that's a huge deal. Almost as big a deal as the AFD holding seats in Germany, a quite a few of them, for the first time.
A white nationalist terrorist group is responsible for at least 5 murders across the country as well as multiple failed bomb plots. And the fact is, I'm willing to bet no one has heard of them until they read this article. If this was a group of Muslims or African-Americans the whole country would be at DEFCON 4:
"a white supremacist group that celebrates both Hitler and Charles Manson"
Wow, quite the idols for these guys.
Would almost be amusing if they weren't killing people and amassing stockpiles of weapons and holding training sessions in the desert. I had actually heard of two of these murders individually, but not the connection to the same group. The other person they venerate is perhaps the most relevant to what their actual motives may be: Tim McVeigh.
80 members. Not exactly a huge movement these neo Nazis have. 5 murders for 80 members suggests they're a highly dangerous group and should be dealt with accordingly.
So anti-immigrant alt-rightish parties did better than expected in Italy.
People want change, they've been convinced that what they have isn't good enough or that poor people are the cause of their problems, while the rich run off with their money. Foolishly overlooking that things can get worse.
They been hoodwinked and made a mistake. If it's like the US, they were fooled by "populists" who only want to rob the country for their own benefit. They are even saying "Italy first" and if the EU doesn't break to their childish whims then they might want to "italiexit". Which would weaken the EU. Which would further empower Russia and China.
I had seen John Oliver do a segment about that (I'd post the video but might be too raunchy for site rules). These nations that gave up their sovereign currencies for the Euro are really screwed. They have no way of deficit spending to ease the pain and are stuck in a context of scarcity. You know things are dire when Berlusconi was being considered their most reasonable choice.
The FBI does not publish any lists of domestic terror groups, which is probably why almost no one had heard of them before. They do this so that these groups do not realize they might be on the FBI's radar and it doesn't give them any publicity, which often encourages new members to join.
You don't often see "white supremacist" ideology mixed with "Satanism", as the article suggests. The "typical" white supremacist is often a fringe version of extreme "Christianity", at least as far as adopting the idea of a "chosen people" whose job it is it cleanse the Earth.
Modern culture (in games, films etc) has a lot of references to Nazi links with the occult. While nearly all of those are just made up, I don't see it as particularly surprising that a small group of neo-nazis would draw on that culture for their own ideology.
The general "occult", yes, because most of the high-ranking members of the actual Nazi Party were also in the Thule Society (at least, in the early days). That is where their ideas of racial ancestry and racial purity originated.
Sergei Skripal, a Russian ex-spy, and his daughter are critically ill in the UK from unknown causes. Given the radioactive poisoning of Litvinenko in 2006 - eventually resulting in a trial in 2015 blaming the Russian authorities - there will no doubt be a lot of resources put into finding out what happened here. If any suspicious circumstances are found, I imagine the authorities would also want to review the deaths in recent years of Skripal's wife, son and older brother.
I would guess some radioactive isotope of a heavy metal but that wouldn't render the victim unconscious. We will have to wait for the medical reports to be released.
The US Office of Special Counsel is now accusing Kellyanne Conway of violating the Hatch Act for comments she made late last year re: the runoff election in Atlanta. Remember--only a select few Executive Branch officials, including POTUS and VPOTUS, may engage in "political activity", including encouraging people to vote for (or against) a particular candidate.
Many people are highly interested in watching Beto O'Rourke's results in today's Democratic primaries here in Texas; he is running for the Senate seat and is seeking to replace Ted Cruz. Although Mr. O'Rourke has raised more money than Cruz has so far, it is unlikely that he will win in November--Cruz is the incumbent, the average Texas voter skews Republican (outside of Dallas, Austin, Houston, San Antonio, and the Rio Grande Valley), and Cruz should be able to rely on solid Republican support from the party itself.
I keep seeing these news stories suggesting that there will be a "blue wave" in Texas this year--don't count on it. Democrats will probably win some elections they would not have won under normal circumstances, but we can chalk those victories up to the "Trump factor". The high-profile races will not lean towards blue this November, though. The Austin area Democrats, many of whom are refugees from California, still want to turn the State purple but that probably isn't due to happen until 2024. Don't forget, though--until the 1990s most high-profile State offices here were held by Democrats; the push back against Bill Clinton turned the State red and put W into the gubernatorial seat.
The US Office of Special Counsel is now accusing Kellyanne Conway of violating the Hatch Act for comments she made late last year re: the runoff election in Atlanta. Remember--only a select few Executive Branch officials, including POTUS and VPOTUS, may engage in "political activity", including encouraging people to vote for (or against) a particular candidate.
The White House has responded to the findings that Kellyanne violated the hatch act and its pretty much what you would expect : "Nuh uh, no she didn't! Nuh uh Nuh Nuh Nuh uh! Lalalala I can't hear you, Lalalala. We're Republicans we can do whatever we want. Lalalala."
I keep seeing these news stories suggesting that there will be a "blue wave" in Texas this year--don't count on it. Democrats will probably win some elections they would not have won under normal circumstances, but we can chalk those victories up to the "Trump factor". The high-profile races will not lean towards blue this November, though. The Austin area Democrats, many of whom are refugees from California, still want to turn the State purple but that probably isn't due to happen until 2024. Don't forget, though--until the 1990s most high-profile State offices here were held by Democrats; the push back against Bill Clinton turned the State red and put W into the gubernatorial seat.
I have been seeing early polling suggesting high turnout for Dems and I expect they probably will have success. My issue with the Blue Wave, is: what are we actually winning here? From my perspective, many times this ends up being worthless Blue Dogs and centrists which will just lose again in the future like a perpetual see-saw. I seem to recall seeing some progressives (actual progressives that is) in the mix though. One of the pages I follow on FB interviews some of these lesser known progressive candidates around the country, so that is encouraging to see.
Sergei Skripal, a Russian ex-spy, and his daughter are critically ill in the UK from unknown causes. Given the radioactive poisoning of Litvinenko in 2006 - eventually resulting in a trial in 2015 blaming the Russian authorities - there will no doubt be a lot of resources put into finding out what happened here. If any suspicious circumstances are found, I imagine the authorities would also want to review the deaths in recent years of Skripal's wife, son and older brother.
Happened up the road from me in Salisbury, everybody's a bit,
"WTF in Salisbury?"
This is the more usual headline,
"Traffic backed up by "runaway horse".
And this sums up the feelings, as quoted from the article,
"Simone said: "It's not that interesting compared to other local news at the moment, but it was slightly exciting and amusing - but it could be very dangerous."
I have been seeing early polling suggesting high turnout for Dems and I expect they probably will have success. My issue with the Blue Wave, is: what are we actually winning here? From my perspective, many times this ends up being worthless Blue Dogs and centrists which will just lose again in the future like a perpetual see-saw. I seem to recall seeing some progressives (actual progressives that is) in the mix though. One of the pages I follow on FB interviews some of these lesser known progressive candidates around the country, so that is encouraging to see.
It is often difficult for progressives to win seats outside a local or State race because wealthy donors shovel money at their opponents in an attempt to see that they do not win. From their perspective they are correct to do so, since many progressives would like to implement a "make them pay their fair share" system, which would increase their taxes significantly. Who wants to pay more in tax?
We are going to see increased Democratic turnout for the primaries and we are going to see increased Democratic turnout this coming November, both attributable to the Trump factor I mentioned earlier. Whether that turns into election victories is something we will simply have to wait to find out.
It is often difficult for progressives to win seats outside a local or State race because wealthy donors shovel money at their opponents in an attempt to see that they do not win. From their perspective they are correct to do so, since many progressives would like to implement a "make them pay their fair share" system, which would increase their taxes significantly. Who wants to pay more in tax?
Yes! This is the whole "how are you going to pay for it?" issue that has plagued us. MMT is the answer and what wins the intellectual debate. I consider this as more important to ideology (maybe I am pragmatic after all? lol). Many of the new breed of progressives are starting to explain that we do not need to raise taxes though. This is also attracting the attention of some on the right. Mike Norman is a MMT progressive who used to be an economist on Fox, planning to run as a Republican, for example. I can see an economic populist coalition forming left and right around MMT. It's just a matter of awareness and being heard. Once people understand the "taxpayer dollar" myth and that federal taxes don't pay for anything and are used to create demand and regulate spending power, monetary sovereignty, operational realities of the federal reserve and the truth about deficits and the "national debt", understand sectoral balances and automatic stabilizers... there is much less reason for xenophobic, right wing populist anger. Anger needs to be focused at the root cause- neoliberalism.
I'm skeptical of a blue wave, especially in a place like Texas (or Arizona). I mean by all means try there but the powers that be there, Republicans, will pull out all the stops to ensure that they don't lose. That means gerrymandering the hell out of things. That means crooked election officials that know whats best for you even if you don't. That means closed polling stations. Voter disenfranchisement. Voter intimidation. The whole nine you're going to get in Texas.
Chaos increases viewership for reality TV shows. The Oval Office is not a reality TV show. Well, at least is it wasn't before now.
Trump likes to crow about running the country like a business. Let's face the facts here, if any normal business had this kind of turnover after one year, it would be a total disaster, from management on down to the workers. How would your place of work do if supervisors and entire swaths of workers were being replaced every couple of weeks??
Comments
*************
@booinyoureyes That second article, from the Atlantic, is a good read.
*************
Don't forget--many Democrats were also on board with the TPP, which was about as "anti-little guy" a piece of legislation as you can imagine. This isn't to say that I excuse Republicans, of course--they are not the party of "middle class America" as they claim. My wife keeps suggesting that I come down to their meetings (she is an officer in the local Republican Party) but I keep telling her "no". I cannot in good conscience give them my support...but I am running out of different ways to tell her "no, thank you".
*************
Oh, yes, I almost forgot--the Oscars are tonight. Seriously, who gives a flying **** about the Oscars?
I also have a fundamental difference with the idea that compromise and bipartisanship are necessarily good. I disagree with the author's premise or implications that this is how it is intended to operate. Authoritarianism is certainly efficient, but not very palatable for me.
'Delay is preferable to error' -Thomas Jefferson
And, as I've said before, once people stop flocking to the multiplex, renting Redbox multiple times a week, and stop subscribing to Netflix, then I'll take the much ballyhooed hatred of "Hollywood elites" seriously. Until then, not a chance. Much like people aren't really prepared to give up their cheap consumer goods that are a result of free trade, they also are not willing to give up their entertainment options.
Now everything is racism, I was called "racist" only because i found blonde woman pretty attractive and no, i an not blonde. My hair was blonde during my childhood but unfortunately become darker and darker. I tried everything, even chamomile but din't worked. Is impossible to choose like or dislike something or someone.
One form of moderation is having the same hodgepodge of views on issues as the "median American". I'd prefer to call this "ideologically moderate".
The other form of moderation is being willing to make compromises due to an understanding that we live in a diverse and pluralistic society. I'd call this a "political moderate".
I am not an ideological moderate by any means. I have generally classical liberal views on the issues, which separates me from the median American in many areas. However, I would consider myself a political moderate (though I certainly didn't used to be). I value the long term stability and durability of important institutions, and I don't think they can survive if people are looking to destroy the other side. This means I favor both compromise and temperance.
I think some ideological moderates arrive there through careful consideration, while others (and I hate to say this) are just not very contemplative and arrive at their outlook through gut instinct. I think Trump is very much in this vein in that he, immigration politics aside, has views that the "man on the street" may share. This includes waffling on some issues- polling show that Americans go back and forth on several issues (for example, gun control following a horrific shooting).
However, Trump is incredibly intemperate, and for all his talk of deal-making is far from a political moderate. This is the kind of moderation I think that disciplined political parties might instill in candidates that would allow for better governance. The moderation I call for isn't necessarily ideological moderation, but political moderation (though I will grant you that some degree of ideological moderation would follow from political moderation).
At its best, political moderation can achieve solutions that are ideologically driven, but still palatable to the side who "lost" on the issue.
[whoops video had some language at the end... removed]
@booinyoureyes Basically what you describe is what I would consider pragmatism (or perhaps less flatteringly- expedient). I'm not sure what an ideological moderate would look like, or what issues the "median American" would consist of. Everyone falls on the spectrum somewhere. The data doesn't really help much- most voters are independents of one form or another. I am an independent, but my views are strongly progressive, for example. It sounds more like an attempt to claim that most Americans are "centrist", which I would not agree with. Certainly the unpopularity of the two major parties, and neoliberalism in general, would indicate that this is not true. I think ideological moderates ARE centrist, but I don't think that is representative of the mainstream "median American" set of values overall.
True, but most independents are behavioral Republicans or behavioral Democrats.
People want change, they've been convinced that what they have isn't good enough or that poor people are the cause of their problems, while the rich run off with their money. Foolishly overlooking that things can get worse.
They been hoodwinked and made a mistake. If it's like the US, they were fooled by "populists" who only want to rob the country for their own benefit. They are even saying "Italy first" and if the EU doesn't break to their childish whims then they might want to "italiexit". Which would weaken the EU. Which would further empower Russia and China.
Have they learned nothing from conartists Mussolini and Berlusconi?
Perhaps @Aedan can weigh in here on Italy..
He is also correct in that the Mueller Investigation cannot *make* him talk. Of course, this means he will probably wind up in jail for some form of obstruction, but they definitely cannot force him to say anything. It's his choice--let's see if he is ready to accept the consequences of those choices.
Not surprising Italy's anti-EU parties won a major victory, they are some of the worst hit by the EU's mass importation of economic migrants policy. It's also consistent with the pattern we've been seeing with growing nationalist sentiment in Germany, France, etc. Lega Nord did as well as the Democrats, that's a huge deal. Almost as big a deal as the AFD holding seats in Germany, a quite a few of them, for the first time.
https://www.propublica.org/article/atomwaffen-division-inside-white-hate-group
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/us/what-is-atomwaffen.html
Wow, quite the idols for these guys.
You don't often see "white supremacist" ideology mixed with "Satanism", as the article suggests. The "typical" white supremacist is often a fringe version of extreme "Christianity", at least as far as adopting the idea of a "chosen people" whose job it is it cleanse the Earth.
Here is an overview of domestic terrorism in the United States published by the Congressional Research Service from August 2017. It is only 59 pages but most pages have so many footnotes that they are only 2/3 to 3/4 full.
The US Office of Special Counsel is now accusing Kellyanne Conway of violating the Hatch Act for comments she made late last year re: the runoff election in Atlanta. Remember--only a select few Executive Branch officials, including POTUS and VPOTUS, may engage in "political activity", including encouraging people to vote for (or against) a particular candidate.
Many people are highly interested in watching Beto O'Rourke's results in today's Democratic primaries here in Texas; he is running for the Senate seat and is seeking to replace Ted Cruz. Although Mr. O'Rourke has raised more money than Cruz has so far, it is unlikely that he will win in November--Cruz is the incumbent, the average Texas voter skews Republican (outside of Dallas, Austin, Houston, San Antonio, and the Rio Grande Valley), and Cruz should be able to rely on solid Republican support from the party itself.
I keep seeing these news stories suggesting that there will be a "blue wave" in Texas this year--don't count on it. Democrats will probably win some elections they would not have won under normal circumstances, but we can chalk those victories up to the "Trump factor". The high-profile races will not lean towards blue this November, though. The Austin area Democrats, many of whom are refugees from California, still want to turn the State purple but that probably isn't due to happen until 2024. Don't forget, though--until the 1990s most high-profile State offices here were held by Democrats; the push back against Bill Clinton turned the State red and put W into the gubernatorial seat.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376977-white-house-conway-did-not-violate-the-hatch-act
"WTF in Salisbury?"
This is the more usual headline,
"Traffic backed up by "runaway horse".
And this sums up the feelings, as quoted from the article,
"Simone said: "It's not that interesting compared to other local news at the moment, but it was slightly exciting and amusing - but it could be very dangerous."
We are going to see increased Democratic turnout for the primaries and we are going to see increased Democratic turnout this coming November, both attributable to the Trump factor I mentioned earlier. Whether that turns into election victories is something we will simply have to wait to find out.
The results of the Texas primaries may be found here at the Texas Tribune, a left-leaning news source based out of Austin which is refreshingly not always one-sided--they do a good job at trying to present the facts without a lot of editorial input. The big result is that despite suggestions that there was going to be a huge blue wave of voters, 1.5 million voted in Republican primaries as opposed to 1 million in Democratic primaries.
edit/add: I guess it shouldn't surprise me that Trump is using the Mooch as an unofficial loose cannon. In his own words:
I like conflict. I like having two people with two points of view," Trump said Tuesday when asked about internal strife during a news conference. "I like watching it, I like seeing it."
Chaos increases viewership for reality TV shows. The Oval Office is not a reality TV show. Well, at least is it wasn't before now.