I can't think of a single person who has been "expelled" from either political party in the US. Beaten in a primary, sure, but outright exiled?? The only thing close is when Joe Liberman lost to Ned Lamont in his Senate primary because of his support of the Iraq War, and then decided to run AGAINST Lamont in a 3-way race as an independent. He was essentially excommunicated at that point, but it was entirely of his own choosing, first in supporting a horrendous war the vast majority of Democratic voters opposed, and then by refusing to respect their wishes in the CT Senate primary.
Interesting - that makes sense @Mantis37. Another question if I might impose: I've heard several people use the term "People vs Parliament" to describe the upcoming election. Contextually - it sounds like one party running on the message that Parliament doesn't reflect the will of the people (some paradoxically, asking to go to Parliament themselves) - is that what it means? Or is there something else to it?
That's it really. It's basically a legacy of the competing mandates of election vs. referendum. Also, one of the underlying approaches of the Leave campaigns was to harness anti-establishment feelings prevalent in many parts of the country, especially after many years of austerity. So the government are likely to argue that the will of the people is being thwarted by elites. (Brexit itself is really an intra-elite struggle in my opinion, there are commercial interests supporting both sides.)
On the disturbing side reputedly the conservatives are also looking to morph into a populist party by considering whether to lump issues like transgender rights in as well. Amusingly some ministers have been referring to their opponents as 'the rebel alliance', which makes them...?
Something I found interesting is that the 21 conservative MPs that voted with the opposition have been effectively kicked out the Conservative party - which seems kind of extreme to me (At least, it would be extreme if that happened in the USA). @Grond0 - is this something that has precedent (The removing of members of the party if they vote against the PM's wishes) in the UK?
Individual members of a party have been expelled for lots of reasons (and voting against their party can a contributory factor). However, the only similar event to this I can think of was John Major's attempt to expel the Maastricht rebels (again an issue over relations with the EU) - who had consistently been voting against the government at a time when they only had a small majority.
In that case the whip was withdrawn from a group of MPs, but Major did not actually follow through on his threat to expel them. Party rules were changed as a direct result of this case though, so that no-one who's had the whip withdrawn is eligible to stand as a Conservative candidate in an election. That's why the withdrawal of the whip yesterday is being generally regarded as an expulsion from the party.
Note that Philip Hammond (who was chancellor from 2016 until recently) has already said he will fight this decision. I presume that will involve attempting to overturn the rule that says local constituencies cannot select anyone who has had the whip withdrawn.
That's it really. It's basically a legacy of the competing mandates of election vs. referendum. Also, one of the underlying approaches of the Leave campaigns was to harness anti-establishment feelings prevalent in many parts of the country, especially after many years of austerity. So the government are likely to argue that the will of the people is being thwarted by elites. (Brexit itself is really an intra-elite struggle in my opinion, there are commercial interests supporting both sides.)
On the "People vs Parliament" issue I agree that Johnson will present this as a question of competing mandates. If he's successful in that portrayal, that would give him a huge advantage as I think most people would say the will of the people should triumph when expressed on a specific issue.
However, Johnson's opponents will presumably state their case that the EU referendum does not in fact give any mandate for the specific issue of no deal - that's because essentially all the information presented at the time of the referendum assumed a deal would be made. Even Farage, who is now saying the only legitimate Brexit would be a no deal one, ruled that out in nearly all his statements during the referendum campaign. It's not just Farage though that's now trying to revise history and portray the campaign as having fully considered no deal. Here's an article fact-checking what was actually said. Polling evidence also shows there is a distinction between:
- whether people would vote for Brexit in another referendum (close enough to be a toss-up which way that would go)
- whether people would prefer to remain rather than leave with no deal (a much clearer preference for remain)
As an analogy, let's take the 'war on drugs'. Assume a referendum is held on the question "do you support an end to the war on drugs" and that all the information presented during the campaign relates to the effect of decriminalizing the personal use of drugs (but not the sale of drugs) - that's currently the position in Portugal. The referendum result is that people do wish to "end the war on drugs" and the government then brings forward legislation to fully legalize all drugs on the basis that has been supported in the referendum. Such a government could expect to be criticized for that - for exactly the same reasons the current government are being criticized for the approach to no deal ...
If the Republicans were really in the process of staging a coup, how did they lose the House in 2018? Did they decide to lose one on purpose just to make it look like they aren't taking over?
It's all out there for you to research. Look at the number of election recounts they've called for, the gerrymandering in 2010, the stacking of the supreme court to overturn past SCOTUS rulings - never mind refusing to confirm Merrick Garland, and the laundry list of "model legislation" written by evangelical nationalists being introduced (and sometimes passing) in state legislatures. How about a Republican state legislature voting to remove power from the governor's office right before a Democrat replaces a Republican governor in that state?
Or the significant increase of right wing billionaires funding right wing candidates and legislation? Funding activist groups to oppose immigration, LGBT rights, women's rights, reproductive justice, freedom of speech, and literally anything that benefits women, people of color, LGBT people, and disabled people. Turning Point USA did not materialize from a UFO one day. Milo Yiannapoulos didn't just suddenly fall into money, nor did he accidentally run out after his star fell. Look into who's funding the lie factory that calls itself "Prager U."
Also, I didn't say they had taken over completely, I said they're in the process of trying to take over, and that it's been a slow process over decades. Really, it started in the late 60s or early 70s, but picked up momentum during the Reagan and Bush Sr. years, although Bush had to back off on some things because he decided letting the economy crash from terrible economic policy (trickle down).
What happened in 2018 was at least in part a reaction to the excesses and failures of Republican governance.
But just to clarify: I did not say they had completed a coup, which your question at least implied I had stated. What I had stated was that it's a process, and that it is not complete. It's also extensively documented for anyone who cares to look.
@smeagolheart Labor Day really isn't that important here. Most people do enjoy a three-day weekend but it really isn't a thing like it was in decades past. Most holidays in the United States are "fake" holidays, anyway, and were originally greeting card company fabrications (probably not entirely true...but not entirely false, either) or by breweries (looking at you, Cinco de Mayo, which is not a major holiday in Mexico). These days, though, every day is "National (insert something here) Day" like "dog", "donut", "pancake", etc. That crap drives me up the wall--for example, the 5th is not "National Cheese Pizza Day" (not making that up), it is just Thursday.
Okay, you're making two unrelated claims here. The first is that Labor Day is something people primarily care about for the long weekend, which is accurate. Then you go on to say that most holidays are fake, created by greeting card companies or breweries. This shift in topic might lead people to mistakenly believe that Labor Day itself is one such holiday, when in fact it has a history quite distinct from Coca-Cola giving us the modern image of Santa Claus.
Labor Day, the first Monday in September, is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.
The labor movement being the movement that worked hard to establish unions and legal protections for workers. Many US citizens, if they knew this (most don't), they'd dismiss it as communist propaganda, but it's valuable to know the actual history behind something, and understand its true importance and intent.
If the Republicans were really in the process of staging a coup, how did they lose the House in 2018? Did they decide to lose one on purpose just to make it look like they aren't taking over?
The blue wave should have been even more historic but for Republican dirty tricks (gerrymandering, voter suppression, activist judges, etc).
Dems should have probably picked up an additional 20-25 seats if there were free and fair elections and not ridiculous districts like Dan Crenshaw's in Texas.
If the Republicans were really in the process of staging a coup, how did they lose the House in 2018? Did they decide to lose one on purpose just to make it look like they aren't taking over?
Or the significant increase of right wing billionaires funding right wing candidates and legislation? Funding activist groups to oppose immigration, LGBT rights, women's rights, reproductive justice, freedom of speech, and literally anything that benefits women, people of color, LGBT people, and disabled people.
If the Republicans were really in the process of staging a coup, how did they lose the House in 2018? Did they decide to lose one on purpose just to make it look like they aren't taking over?
The blue wave should have been even more historic but for Republican dirty tricks (gerrymandering, voter suppression, activist judges, etc).
Dems should have probably picked up an additional 20-25 seats if there were free and fair elections and not ridiculous districts like Dan Crenshaw's in Texas.
I totally forgot to mention voter suppression! More voters were barred from voting in certain states than the margin Trump won by, if I recall correctly.
All elections have recounts by law, so asking for a recount typically isn't even necessary but there isn't anything wrong with doing so.
Gerrymandering is neither unconstitutional nor illegal. It shouldn't happen, to be certain, but it does happen. In fact, I live in a gerrymandered district which is heavily skewed towards Democrats but you don't hear me complaining about it.
People are allowed to give money to support causes with which others do not agree. Deal with it.
Even I was saying that McConnell's Senate was wrong for not holding confirmation hearings for Garland--the Senate does not have the authority to abdicate its constitutional requirements and duties.
Fair enough about the Labor Day comments--after rereading those comments it does appear as if I am lumping Labor Day in with the fake holidays. I never claim to be perfect. In the 1920s and 1930s the labor movement was necessary because in some instances employees were actually dying because of hazardous working conditions. These days, though, the labor movement is nothing but "socialism lite". There is a weekly program on the community radio station here, Saturday mornings at 9am, and those people aren't even "lite", spending most of their time talking about how rich people and corporations are evil. The show's main host is Jim Hightower--that name won't mean much to most of you, but he was once the Agriculture Commissioner here in Texas and has been a lifelong Progressive and became a sharp critic of Bill Clinton over NAFTA.
People who are concerned about their ability to vote should be making sure they are registered and eligible right now. Don't wait until next September, do it now.
If the Republicans were really in the process of staging a coup, how did they lose the House in 2018? Did they decide to lose one on purpose just to make it look like they aren't taking over?
Or the significant increase of right wing billionaires funding right wing candidates and legislation? Funding activist groups to oppose immigration, LGBT rights, women's rights, reproductive justice, freedom of speech, and literally anything that benefits women, people of color, LGBT people, and disabled people.
What does "reproductive justice" mean?
It means killing babies. Not much "justice" for them.
All elections have recounts by law, so asking for a recount typically isn't even necessary but there isn't anything wrong with doing so.
Gerrymandering is neither unconstitutional nor illegal. It shouldn't happen, to be certain, but it does happen. In fact, I live in a gerrymandered district which is heavily skewed towards Democrats but you don't hear me complaining about it.
People are allowed to give money to support causes with which others do not agree. Deal with it.
Even I was saying that McConnell's Senate was wrong for not holding confirmation hearings for Garland--the Senate does not have the authority to abdicate its constitutional requirements and duties.
Fair enough about the Labor Day comments--after rereading those comments it does appear as if I am lumping Labor Day in with the fake holidays. I never claim to be perfect. In the 1920s and 1930s the labor movement was necessary because in some instances employees were actually dying because of hazardous working conditions. These days, though, the labor movement is nothing but "socialism lite". There is a weekly program on the community radio station here, Saturday mornings at 9am, and those people aren't even "lite", spending most of their time talking about how rich people and corporations are evil. The show's main host is Jim Hightower--that name won't mean much to most of you, but he was once the Agriculture Commissioner here in Texas and has been a lifelong Progressive and became a sharp critic of Bill Clinton over NAFTA.
People who are concerned about their ability to vote should be making sure they are registered and eligible right now. Don't wait until next September, do it now.
Not going to get into all of this, but some gerrymandering is unconstitutional. In fact, some Texas districts were declared unconstitutional, on 14th amendment grounds, for diluting the voting power of racial minorities.
While you didn't say it, it's implied in your argument that both sides do gerrymandering and this is just a false equivalence. There are a handful of instances of Democratic gerrymandering but they are relatively small compared to what Republicans have done. Moreover, they're often designed to protect certain incumbents and not to gain a partisan advantage. It's a failure to acknowledge the different scale of wrongdoing here. There's no good evidence that both sides are equal on this issue, imo.
If the Republicans were really in the process of staging a coup, how did they lose the House in 2018? Did they decide to lose one on purpose just to make it look like they aren't taking over?
Or the significant increase of right wing billionaires funding right wing candidates and legislation? Funding activist groups to oppose immigration, LGBT rights, women's rights, reproductive justice, freedom of speech, and literally anything that benefits women, people of color, LGBT people, and disabled people.
What does "reproductive justice" mean?
It means killing babies. Not much "justice" for them.
And I don't understand why American conservatives are so untroubled by their party's ever-growing reliance on un-democratic aspects of the US political system to maintain power. This is what Sorcerie is rightfully talking about with regards to a "coup".
Conservative folks may like the fact that the Electoral College can result in favorable outcomes, or that one party can literally win the popular vote for House candidates and not take the majority (as in 2012). But if the will of the people continues to be thwarted, how is that good for the long term health of the republic? And if one of the major parties continues to rely on these measures to win office, one party is becoming a de facto an enemy of democracy in our world.
Gerrymandering is neither unconstitutional nor illegal. It shouldn't happen, to be certain, but it does happen. In fact, I live in a gerrymandered district which is heavily skewed towards Democrats but you don't hear me complaining about it.
...
People are allowed to give money to support causes with which others do not agree. Deal with it.
Gerrymandering is unconstitutional. Activist partisan Republican judges decided the case wrongly.
People are allowed to give money to support causes with which others do not agree sure but unlimited politicial donations through pacs and superpacs and weak campaign finance laws leads us to the rigged system we have in favor of the ultra-wealthy. Politicians don't represent we the people, they represent their rich donors. Who cares about Joe Walmart and his $10 donation when you can give a speech on front of Goldman Sachs and bring in $10 million dollars right.
These days, though, the labor movement is nothing but "socialism lite". There is a weekly program on the community radio station here, Saturday mornings at 9am, and those people aren't even "lite", spending most of their time talking about how rich people and corporations are evil. The show's main host is Jim Hightower--that name won't mean much to most of you, but he was once the Agriculture Commissioner here in Texas and has been a lifelong Progressive and became a sharp critic of Bill Clinton over NAFTA.
Ohh socialism. Wait, people like social security and Medicare. I have relatives in other countries where when you grow too old, you're in trouble because there's no social security and Medicare. You're just on your own or if you are lucky your kids will help.
And as I explained above the game is rigged. Working people are getting screwed. The rich are absolutely not paying their share and completely own Republican apologists who continually work against working people's interests in favor of the wealthy and corporations.
Trump is making a space force to fight space wars for tens of billions of dollars per year. Nobody lives in space there to fight. There's no space isis or space terrorism. Here on Earth we have wages that have been stagnant since the 1980s, we have $7.25 minimum wage in lots of states that literally working full-time can't afford rent in any state. We have I believe tens of thousands of medical bankruptcies every year. We have devastating weather events exacerbated by a few rich guys not wanting to make adjustments. And on and on. We have real problems and the Republican solution is tax cuts for the rich and deregulation for businesses and the attitude of 'screw you I got mine' to working people.
People who are concerned about their ability to vote should be making sure they are registered and eligible right now. Don't wait until next September, do it now.
That's well and good but not only that you have Republicans purging voters left and right so you have to check and recheck constantly or they'll throw you off the polls. Cross-check is the game they have where if one John W. Smith is a felon they remove all John Smith's from the voting rolls nationwide - even John A. Smith because maybe that felon is voting in 12 states at once.
In other states if you don't vote in 2 elections, the government will send you a postcard designed to look like junkmail that if you don't fill it out you'll be purged from the voting rolls. Activist partisan Republican judges also okayed this bullshit too.
Not going to get into all of this, but some gerrymandering is unconstitutional. In fact, some Texas districts were declared unconstitutional, on 14th amendment grounds, for diluting the voting power of racial minorities.
While you didn't say it, it's implied in your argument that both sides do gerrymandering and this is just a false equivalence. There are a handful of instances of Democratic gerrymandering but they are relatively small compared to what Republicans have done. Moreover, they're often designed to protect certain incumbents and not to gain a partisan advantage. It's a failure to acknowledge the different scale of wrongdoing here. There's no good evidence that both sides are equal on this issue, imo.
I'm going to reply to his post later when I have time for proper citations, but this so much. His answer fails to address what I wrote and shifts it to questions of legality, which are irrelevant.
If the Republicans were really in the process of staging a coup, how did they lose the House in 2018? Did they decide to lose one on purpose just to make it look like they aren't taking over?
Or the significant increase of right wing billionaires funding right wing candidates and legislation? Funding activist groups to oppose immigration, LGBT rights, women's rights, reproductive justice, freedom of speech, and literally anything that benefits women, people of color, LGBT people, and disabled people.
What does "reproductive justice" mean?
It means killing babies. Not much "justice" for them.
Do you know how fetuses develop? Asking so I know where to start with this.
Also, North Carolina's gerrymandered maps just got thrown out on unconstitutional grounds. Not yet a Supreme Court case, but still. Gerrymandering very much *is* unconstitutional, as it violates equal protection under the law of the 14th amendment (among other things according to these judges).
And if you read the story, a similar thing happened recently in Pennsylvania. There's probably even more cases of this, it'd just be crazy work to follow it all. In part because Republican state legislatures are doing this everywhere, and it's quite frightening for people who sincerely care about democracy.
One point that he mentioned is that there are far more deforestation happening in Colombia than on Brazil but since Evo Morales is socialist, nobody cares...
Gerrymandering is unconstitutional. Activist partisan Republican judges decided the case wrongly.
I suspect the SCOTUS Justices know more about the Constitution than you or I do. You don't have to like their decision, of course, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a political issue and not subject to the review of Federal courts at this time. State courts may still try to address the issue, of course, but upon appeal to a Federal court the lower court ruling will be tossed, as it should be.
re: Social Security and Medicare...that isn't "socialism", but safety nets which were designed during the Depression and which should have been phased out in the 1950s. I would love to be given all the money I have been forced to pay into those systems in exchange for never using them--I want that 7.65% back in my pocket (6.2% for SSI, 1.45% for MWH). I am not going to get what I want, to be certain, but I can live with that.
Now...about Mr. Sanders' comments....well, the Democrats have been shoveling money at poor people for 50 years (the War on Poverty started in the mid-1960s) and, to date, all that money has resulted in...nothing. Apparently, throwing money at a problem does not solve it--who knew? If you want to raise people out of poverty then you show them where and how to receive low-cost job training and, for pity's sake, you try to instill in them the desire to aim for more than "minimum wage".
Not you, of course, but there are other posters I had forgotten to ignore when I left for several months. Now that I remember who they are their posts will be duly ignored.
One point that he mentioned is that there are far more deforestation happening in Colombia than on Brazil but since Evo Morales is socialist, nobody cares...
One point that he mentioned is that there are far more deforestation happening in Colombia than on Brazil but since Evo Morales is socialist, nobody cares...
Stefan Molyneux white nationalist????? Are you joking??? White nationalists criticize him about his views on Israel for eg. As for Bolsonaro, the greatest cut on fire prevention was not made by Bolsonaro but by Workers party 3 years ago.
NASA is far more reliable than Clinton News Network. Sorry, but i can't buy the "mainstream media narrative" that the president is somehow responsible for it. Keep in mind that the media already said a lot of lies about him. According to mainstream media, Bolsonaro is an white nationalist who won in a white minority country and hired a lot of people of African ancestry. This minister in question, looks like he have African ancestry(mouth) and his campaign generated an controversy
Translating >
Against wild Boars plague
Against the left and MST
Against theft
Against criminals
Vote .30-06
Zero tolerance.
Stefan Molyneux white nationalist????? Are you joking??? White nationalists criticize him about his views on Israel for eg. As for Bolsonaro, the greatest cut on fire prevention was not made by Bolsonaro but by Workers party 3 years ago.
NASA is far more reliable than Clinton News Network. Sorry, but i can't buy the "mainstream media narrative" that the president is somehow responsible for it. Keep in mind that the media already said a lot of lies about him. According to mainstream media, Bolsonaro is an white nationalist who won in a white minority country and hired a lot of people of African ancestry. This minister in question, looks like he have African ancestry(mouth) and his campaign generated an controversy
Translating >
Against wild Boars plague
Against the left and MST
Against theft
Against criminals
Vote .30-06
Zero tolerance.
So. Your argument about Stefan Molyneux is that he isnt white nationalist enough that all white nationalists love him? And to make this argument, you've cited... no evidence that he isnt a white supremacist? He has very little credibility. Any interview he does is going to suffer for it.
Also. Who cited CNN? I dont see any CNN links here. I included a BBC link.
I dont really know what point you're trying to make talking about the minister's ancestry. It's immaterial to the point at hand, which is: Bolsonaro has fired people from government jobs for disagreeing with him. So we shouldnt necessarily take his government at its word.
The NASA source is interesting, because they linked where they got their data, and it literally includes a proviso that suggests that August 2019 is the worst for fires on record in the Amazon.
Gerrymandering is unconstitutional. Activist partisan Republican judges decided the case wrongly.
I suspect the SCOTUS Justices know more about the Constitution than you or I do. You don't have to like their decision, of course, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a political issue and not subject to the review of Federal courts at this time. State courts may still try to address the issue, of course, but upon appeal to a Federal court the lower court ruling will be tossed, as it should be.
It is more correct to say gerrymandering CAN be illegal. Yes, the SCOTUS has ruled that gerrymandering solely for PARTISAN purposes is not unconstitutional. But if it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution it IS unconstitutional. Therefore, legal gerrymandering needs to thread a path between "give an advantage" and "not give so much advantage we disenfranchise minorities".
So it's all BS and should be done away with for solidly apolitical methods.
And it can always be brought to the SCOTUS (if they grant certiorari).
I suspect the SCOTUS Justices know more about the Constitution than you or I do. You don't have to like their decision, of course, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a political issue and not subject to the review of Federal courts at this time. State courts may still try to address the issue, of course, but upon appeal to a Federal court the lower court ruling will be tossed, as it should be.
They are totally wrong as usual - they are issuing 5-4 wrong decisions on a great many issues including this one. If you feel people's right for fair representation should be tossed out because it's a politicial issue then perhaps you should not be a Supreme Court justice because you clearly aren't protecting Americans exercising their right to vote.
re: Social Security and Medicare...that isn't "socialism", but safety nets which were designed during the Depression and which should have been phased out in the 1950s. I would love to be given all the money I have been forced to pay into those systems in exchange for never using them--I want that 7.65% back in my pocket (6.2% for SSI, 1.45% for MWH). I am not going to get what I want, to be certain, but I can live with that.
Social security and Medicare are socialism, conservatives of that day back then railed against them as 'evil socialism' even back then.
You say you don't want to be 'forced' to pay for social security and Medicare. What does that mean and what would happen if people didn't pay into the system and it didn't exist?
Take the case of a strapping young male in his 20s, he would be years away from retirement and without pre-existing health conditions he wouldn't need Medicare, Medicaid and Social security for many years. But that guy doesn't exist in a vacuum. We live in a society.
This strapping young person has a father that might have prexisting conditions or be nearing retirement age. Maybe he has grandparents that would have no insurance and no support in their old age.
This young man is not the only one affected: children, wives, sisters, brothers, aunts uncles, neighbors. There would be a lot more homeless elderly people - for a short while anyway. People who could not work would be dying in the streets because of no health insurance.
It;s incredibly shortsighted to think that just because you personally don't need a program it should go away when it benefits the society in which you live in numerous ways. We're better off with old people who can't work being taken care of.
Stefan Molyneux white nationalist????? Are you joking??? White nationalists criticize him about his views on Israel for eg. As for Bolsonaro, the greatest cut on fire prevention was not made by Bolsonaro but by Workers party 3 years ago.
NASA is far more reliable than Clinton News Network. Sorry, but i can't buy the "mainstream media narrative" that the president is somehow responsible for it. Keep in mind that the media already said a lot of lies about him. According to mainstream media, Bolsonaro is an white nationalist who won in a white minority country and hired a lot of people of African ancestry. This minister in question, looks like he have African ancestry(mouth) and his campaign generated an controversy
Translating >
Against wild Boars plague
Against the left and MST
Against theft
Against criminals
Vote .30-06
Zero tolerance.
So. Your argument about Stefan Molyneux is that he isnt white nationalist enough that all white nationalists love him? And to make this argument, you've cited... no evidence that he isnt a white supremacist? He has very little credibility. Any interview he does is going to suffer for it.
Also. Who cited CNN? I dont see any CNN links here. I included a BBC link.
I dont really know what point you're trying to make talking about the minister's ancestry. It's immaterial to the point at hand, which is: Bolsonaro has fired people from government jobs for disagreeing with him. So we shouldnt necessarily take his government at its word.
The NASA source is interesting, because they linked where they got their data, and it literally includes a proviso that suggests that August 2019 is the worst for fires on record in the Amazon.
No, Stefan Molyneux have an talk show where he helps people from all over the world and he never cared about race. He never advocated for any white nationalist "idea", never said to for eg have race based citizenship, never advocated for any type of forced segregation between ethinic groups, etc. The closest thing to a WN that i saw from his mouth is that "is a dumb idea to drop bombs and visas into the same country".
Most of Amazon fire is on Bolivia. What Bolsonaro should do? Is like say that Trump is somehow responsible by the Mexican drug cartels.
I mentioned CNN only because they talk everyday about Brazil's part of Amazon, but completely ignore the Bolivian problem who is far worse. Why? Probably because Evo Morales is communist.
No, Stefan Molyneux have an talk show where he helps people from all over the world and he never cared about race. He never advocated for any white nationalist "idea", never said to for eg have race based citizenship, never advocated for any type of forced segregation between ethinic groups, etc. The closest thing to a WN that i saw from his mouth is that "is a dumb idea to drop bombs and visas into the same country".
All evidence being to the contrary. Sorry - but he apparently has a long track record of making white nationalist, white supremecist comments.
The above has literal quotes. Ones that even lacking context of a full conversation say more than enough for us to see he is a white nationalist, racist and eugenicist.
I mentioned CNN only because they talk everyday about Brazil's part of Amazon, but completely ignore the Bolivian problem who is far worse. Why? Probably because Evo Morales is communist.
Then this is whataboutism and I dont know why you brought it up.
Comments
On the disturbing side reputedly the conservatives are also looking to morph into a populist party by considering whether to lump issues like transgender rights in as well. Amusingly some ministers have been referring to their opponents as 'the rebel alliance', which makes them...?
Individual members of a party have been expelled for lots of reasons (and voting against their party can a contributory factor). However, the only similar event to this I can think of was John Major's attempt to expel the Maastricht rebels (again an issue over relations with the EU) - who had consistently been voting against the government at a time when they only had a small majority.
In that case the whip was withdrawn from a group of MPs, but Major did not actually follow through on his threat to expel them. Party rules were changed as a direct result of this case though, so that no-one who's had the whip withdrawn is eligible to stand as a Conservative candidate in an election. That's why the withdrawal of the whip yesterday is being generally regarded as an expulsion from the party.
Note that Philip Hammond (who was chancellor from 2016 until recently) has already said he will fight this decision. I presume that will involve attempting to overturn the rule that says local constituencies cannot select anyone who has had the whip withdrawn.
On the "People vs Parliament" issue I agree that Johnson will present this as a question of competing mandates. If he's successful in that portrayal, that would give him a huge advantage as I think most people would say the will of the people should triumph when expressed on a specific issue.
However, Johnson's opponents will presumably state their case that the EU referendum does not in fact give any mandate for the specific issue of no deal - that's because essentially all the information presented at the time of the referendum assumed a deal would be made. Even Farage, who is now saying the only legitimate Brexit would be a no deal one, ruled that out in nearly all his statements during the referendum campaign. It's not just Farage though that's now trying to revise history and portray the campaign as having fully considered no deal. Here's an article fact-checking what was actually said. Polling evidence also shows there is a distinction between:
- whether people would vote for Brexit in another referendum (close enough to be a toss-up which way that would go)
- whether people would prefer to remain rather than leave with no deal (a much clearer preference for remain)
As an analogy, let's take the 'war on drugs'. Assume a referendum is held on the question "do you support an end to the war on drugs" and that all the information presented during the campaign relates to the effect of decriminalizing the personal use of drugs (but not the sale of drugs) - that's currently the position in Portugal. The referendum result is that people do wish to "end the war on drugs" and the government then brings forward legislation to fully legalize all drugs on the basis that has been supported in the referendum. Such a government could expect to be criticized for that - for exactly the same reasons the current government are being criticized for the approach to no deal ...
It's all out there for you to research. Look at the number of election recounts they've called for, the gerrymandering in 2010, the stacking of the supreme court to overturn past SCOTUS rulings - never mind refusing to confirm Merrick Garland, and the laundry list of "model legislation" written by evangelical nationalists being introduced (and sometimes passing) in state legislatures. How about a Republican state legislature voting to remove power from the governor's office right before a Democrat replaces a Republican governor in that state?
Or the significant increase of right wing billionaires funding right wing candidates and legislation? Funding activist groups to oppose immigration, LGBT rights, women's rights, reproductive justice, freedom of speech, and literally anything that benefits women, people of color, LGBT people, and disabled people. Turning Point USA did not materialize from a UFO one day. Milo Yiannapoulos didn't just suddenly fall into money, nor did he accidentally run out after his star fell. Look into who's funding the lie factory that calls itself "Prager U."
Also, I didn't say they had taken over completely, I said they're in the process of trying to take over, and that it's been a slow process over decades. Really, it started in the late 60s or early 70s, but picked up momentum during the Reagan and Bush Sr. years, although Bush had to back off on some things because he decided letting the economy crash from terrible economic policy (trickle down).
What happened in 2018 was at least in part a reaction to the excesses and failures of Republican governance.
But just to clarify: I did not say they had completed a coup, which your question at least implied I had stated. What I had stated was that it's a process, and that it is not complete. It's also extensively documented for anyone who cares to look.
Okay, you're making two unrelated claims here. The first is that Labor Day is something people primarily care about for the long weekend, which is accurate. Then you go on to say that most holidays are fake, created by greeting card companies or breweries. This shift in topic might lead people to mistakenly believe that Labor Day itself is one such holiday, when in fact it has a history quite distinct from Coca-Cola giving us the modern image of Santa Claus.
https://www.dol.gov/general/laborday/history
The labor movement being the movement that worked hard to establish unions and legal protections for workers. Many US citizens, if they knew this (most don't), they'd dismiss it as communist propaganda, but it's valuable to know the actual history behind something, and understand its true importance and intent.
The blue wave should have been even more historic but for Republican dirty tricks (gerrymandering, voter suppression, activist judges, etc).
Dems should have probably picked up an additional 20-25 seats if there were free and fair elections and not ridiculous districts like Dan Crenshaw's in Texas.
What does "reproductive justice" mean?
I totally forgot to mention voter suppression! More voters were barred from voting in certain states than the margin Trump won by, if I recall correctly.
Gerrymandering is neither unconstitutional nor illegal. It shouldn't happen, to be certain, but it does happen. In fact, I live in a gerrymandered district which is heavily skewed towards Democrats but you don't hear me complaining about it.
People are allowed to give money to support causes with which others do not agree. Deal with it.
Even I was saying that McConnell's Senate was wrong for not holding confirmation hearings for Garland--the Senate does not have the authority to abdicate its constitutional requirements and duties.
Fair enough about the Labor Day comments--after rereading those comments it does appear as if I am lumping Labor Day in with the fake holidays. I never claim to be perfect. In the 1920s and 1930s the labor movement was necessary because in some instances employees were actually dying because of hazardous working conditions. These days, though, the labor movement is nothing but "socialism lite". There is a weekly program on the community radio station here, Saturday mornings at 9am, and those people aren't even "lite", spending most of their time talking about how rich people and corporations are evil. The show's main host is Jim Hightower--that name won't mean much to most of you, but he was once the Agriculture Commissioner here in Texas and has been a lifelong Progressive and became a sharp critic of Bill Clinton over NAFTA.
People who are concerned about their ability to vote should be making sure they are registered and eligible right now. Don't wait until next September, do it now.
It means killing babies. Not much "justice" for them.
Not going to get into all of this, but some gerrymandering is unconstitutional. In fact, some Texas districts were declared unconstitutional, on 14th amendment grounds, for diluting the voting power of racial minorities.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/texas-districts-unconstitutional.html
While you didn't say it, it's implied in your argument that both sides do gerrymandering and this is just a false equivalence. There are a handful of instances of Democratic gerrymandering but they are relatively small compared to what Republicans have done. Moreover, they're often designed to protect certain incumbents and not to gain a partisan advantage. It's a failure to acknowledge the different scale of wrongdoing here. There's no good evidence that both sides are equal on this issue, imo.
Do they "dash the infants against the rocks"?
Conservative folks may like the fact that the Electoral College can result in favorable outcomes, or that one party can literally win the popular vote for House candidates and not take the majority (as in 2012). But if the will of the people continues to be thwarted, how is that good for the long term health of the republic? And if one of the major parties continues to rely on these measures to win office, one party is becoming a de facto an enemy of democracy in our world.
Gerrymandering is unconstitutional. Activist partisan Republican judges decided the case wrongly.
People are allowed to give money to support causes with which others do not agree sure but unlimited politicial donations through pacs and superpacs and weak campaign finance laws leads us to the rigged system we have in favor of the ultra-wealthy. Politicians don't represent we the people, they represent their rich donors. Who cares about Joe Walmart and his $10 donation when you can give a speech on front of Goldman Sachs and bring in $10 million dollars right.
Ohh socialism. Wait, people like social security and Medicare. I have relatives in other countries where when you grow too old, you're in trouble because there's no social security and Medicare. You're just on your own or if you are lucky your kids will help.
And as I explained above the game is rigged. Working people are getting screwed. The rich are absolutely not paying their share and completely own Republican apologists who continually work against working people's interests in favor of the wealthy and corporations.
Trump is making a space force to fight space wars for tens of billions of dollars per year. Nobody lives in space there to fight. There's no space isis or space terrorism. Here on Earth we have wages that have been stagnant since the 1980s, we have $7.25 minimum wage in lots of states that literally working full-time can't afford rent in any state. We have I believe tens of thousands of medical bankruptcies every year. We have devastating weather events exacerbated by a few rich guys not wanting to make adjustments. And on and on. We have real problems and the Republican solution is tax cuts for the rich and deregulation for businesses and the attitude of 'screw you I got mine' to working people.
That's well and good but not only that you have Republicans purging voters left and right so you have to check and recheck constantly or they'll throw you off the polls. Cross-check is the game they have where if one John W. Smith is a felon they remove all John Smith's from the voting rolls nationwide - even John A. Smith because maybe that felon is voting in 12 states at once.
In other states if you don't vote in 2 elections, the government will send you a postcard designed to look like junkmail that if you don't fill it out you'll be purged from the voting rolls. Activist partisan Republican judges also okayed this bullshit too.
I'm going to reply to his post later when I have time for proper citations, but this so much. His answer fails to address what I wrote and shifts it to questions of legality, which are irrelevant.
Do you know how fetuses develop? Asking so I know where to start with this.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-north-carolina-gerrymandering/north-carolina-court-strikes-down-state-legislative-map-as-unconstitutional-gerrymander-idUSKCN1VO2MD
And if you read the story, a similar thing happened recently in Pennsylvania. There's probably even more cases of this, it'd just be crazy work to follow it all. In part because Republican state legislatures are doing this everywhere, and it's quite frightening for people who sincerely care about democracy.
I wonder if the same sharpie that wrote the infamous “toothpaste” on a box was used.
And it’s completely sad that this is the story and not the humanitarian aid that is being directed to the Dominican.
An amazing interview
One point that he mentioned is that there are far more deforestation happening in Colombia than on Brazil but since Evo Morales is socialist, nobody cares...
I suspect the SCOTUS Justices know more about the Constitution than you or I do. You don't have to like their decision, of course, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a political issue and not subject to the review of Federal courts at this time. State courts may still try to address the issue, of course, but upon appeal to a Federal court the lower court ruling will be tossed, as it should be.
re: Social Security and Medicare...that isn't "socialism", but safety nets which were designed during the Depression and which should have been phased out in the 1950s. I would love to be given all the money I have been forced to pay into those systems in exchange for never using them--I want that 7.65% back in my pocket (6.2% for SSI, 1.45% for MWH). I am not going to get what I want, to be certain, but I can live with that.
Now...about Mr. Sanders' comments....well, the Democrats have been shoveling money at poor people for 50 years (the War on Poverty started in the mid-1960s) and, to date, all that money has resulted in...nothing. Apparently, throwing money at a problem does not solve it--who knew? If you want to raise people out of poverty then you show them where and how to receive low-cost job training and, for pity's sake, you try to instill in them the desire to aim for more than "minimum wage".
Not you, of course, but there are other posters I had forgotten to ignore when I left for several months. Now that I remember who they are their posts will be duly ignored.
I'm just going to leave this here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux
We also have some reporting that Bolsonaro has fired parts of the government for contradicting his lies on the amazon deforestation rates:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49415973
... so - not very convincing.
Stefan Molyneux white nationalist????? Are you joking??? White nationalists criticize him about his views on Israel for eg. As for Bolsonaro, the greatest cut on fire prevention was not made by Bolsonaro but by Workers party 3 years ago.
"an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years" source > https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-brazil
NASA is far more reliable than Clinton News Network. Sorry, but i can't buy the "mainstream media narrative" that the president is somehow responsible for it. Keep in mind that the media already said a lot of lies about him. According to mainstream media, Bolsonaro is an white nationalist who won in a white minority country and hired a lot of people of African ancestry. This minister in question, looks like he have African ancestry(mouth) and his campaign generated an controversy
Translating >
Against wild Boars plague
Against the left and MST
Against theft
Against criminals
Vote .30-06
Zero tolerance.
So. Your argument about Stefan Molyneux is that he isnt white nationalist enough that all white nationalists love him? And to make this argument, you've cited... no evidence that he isnt a white supremacist? He has very little credibility. Any interview he does is going to suffer for it.
Also. Who cited CNN? I dont see any CNN links here. I included a BBC link.
I dont really know what point you're trying to make talking about the minister's ancestry. It's immaterial to the point at hand, which is: Bolsonaro has fired people from government jobs for disagreeing with him. So we shouldnt necessarily take his government at its word.
The NASA source is interesting, because they linked where they got their data, and it literally includes a proviso that suggests that August 2019 is the worst for fires on record in the Amazon.
It is more correct to say gerrymandering CAN be illegal. Yes, the SCOTUS has ruled that gerrymandering solely for PARTISAN purposes is not unconstitutional. But if it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution it IS unconstitutional. Therefore, legal gerrymandering needs to thread a path between "give an advantage" and "not give so much advantage we disenfranchise minorities".
So it's all BS and should be done away with for solidly apolitical methods.
And it can always be brought to the SCOTUS (if they grant certiorari).
Social security and Medicare are socialism, conservatives of that day back then railed against them as 'evil socialism' even back then.
You say you don't want to be 'forced' to pay for social security and Medicare. What does that mean and what would happen if people didn't pay into the system and it didn't exist?
Take the case of a strapping young male in his 20s, he would be years away from retirement and without pre-existing health conditions he wouldn't need Medicare, Medicaid and Social security for many years. But that guy doesn't exist in a vacuum. We live in a society.
This strapping young person has a father that might have prexisting conditions or be nearing retirement age. Maybe he has grandparents that would have no insurance and no support in their old age.
This young man is not the only one affected: children, wives, sisters, brothers, aunts uncles, neighbors. There would be a lot more homeless elderly people - for a short while anyway. People who could not work would be dying in the streets because of no health insurance.
It;s incredibly shortsighted to think that just because you personally don't need a program it should go away when it benefits the society in which you live in numerous ways. We're better off with old people who can't work being taken care of.
No, Stefan Molyneux have an talk show where he helps people from all over the world and he never cared about race. He never advocated for any white nationalist "idea", never said to for eg have race based citizenship, never advocated for any type of forced segregation between ethinic groups, etc. The closest thing to a WN that i saw from his mouth is that "is a dumb idea to drop bombs and visas into the same country".
Most of Amazon fire is on Bolivia. What Bolsonaro should do? Is like say that Trump is somehow responsible by the Mexican drug cartels.
I mentioned CNN only because they talk everyday about Brazil's part of Amazon, but completely ignore the Bolivian problem who is far worse. Why? Probably because Evo Morales is communist.
All evidence being to the contrary. Sorry - but he apparently has a long track record of making white nationalist, white supremecist comments.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/stefan-molyneux
The above has literal quotes. Ones that even lacking context of a full conversation say more than enough for us to see he is a white nationalist, racist and eugenicist.
Plenty of evidence to the contrary - but we've been through that.
Then this is whataboutism and I dont know why you brought it up.