The only place we have any power is locally: With our families, in our neighborhoods, with our faith communities. But that power is tremendously effective.
Jul 2, 2022·edited Jul 2, 2022Liked by Robert Reich
Power to the Oeople ; It will not help us now! To stay in our communities and ignore our Federal Court! We need action against the Rogue 'Supreme ' court! We need a separation wall between church and state . The breach in the wall created by the Catholic majority on the Court has denied women and girl's health care rights and they will end other rights too!
@ts1213. What church are you talking about having its toes stepped on? That concept is too bizarre to even be answered. Also, just by asking your first question you are on the wrong side of 400 years of history AND the major rationale for pioneers coming to the new world - escaping State-sponsored authoritarian religion. Also, the right wing resistance and undermining of healthcare, childhood nutrition support and child poverty is "ending the life of an innocent", actually many innocents, who are already born and struggling in our "free market" economy.
Ben, you are so very correct! Todays Republican Party resembles the European aristocracy that our ancestors fled from! Power & control is their main objective. And paying homage to wealthy corporate CEOs & Wall Street bankers! Retrumplicans won’t spend a nickel to feed hungry kids or poor seniors & immigrants! They are not true Americans but they are selfish disgusting politicians who lie for a mob boss play acting as TFG did as President!! They all along with their supporters are nothing more than fascist authoritarians.
ts1213 ; Sounds like you do not understand the Constitution or the Supreme court's oath to uphold it. Separation of church and state is unmistakable in there and a bedrock of freedom from religious tyranny! If you don't want an abortion don't have one! If you think the cost of abortion is expensive , wait til you see the fallout from all these kids and hapless mostly poor women having babies they can ill afford on many levels. It's like education ; if you think it's too expensive, try ignorance!
The state should actually yank the 501c3 tax exemption of churches that meddle in government. The church has no business in government. And as for ending the life of an innocent? Ending abortion ends the life of a ten or twelve year old impregnated by her stepfather or “uncle” by rape, or the life of a mother who will not live if the entropic pregnancy continues.
Governments should have a certain amount of authority to regulate the population during health crises, & churches should not be exempt. As a matter of fact, during the pandemic, church congregations & other religious gatherings have been among the worst spreader events.
We are not (yet) a theocracy, & we definitely don't want to become one. Please refer to the Dark Ages or islamist republics if you have any doubts about that.
When it’s an accidental pregnancy or the result of rape, incest, or even date rape. It’s all part of a woman’s healthcare choices. What gives any man, whether a priest or politician, the right to deny any woman’s right to her own decision about her own healthcare & life! None that’s how many! The Dems will Find a Way to Codify abortion rights into law. They must find a way to add 4 more moderate justices to SCOTUS in order to balance the scales & to match the # of appellate jurisdictions! Nothing less would be acceptable, 1 for Obama’s stolen Justice & 3 more nominated by Biden to match tRump’s appointments. That would be fair! I believe the AG & Justice Dept should present a list of ethics rules that Justice Roberts can present to the others. Plus determine a judicial punishment for Thomas & his ruthless wife’s activism.
This isn't just about paying for abortions, that just requires a decision. This is about forcing ALL women no matter what the circumstances to continue an unwanted pregnancy because five misogynistic men and one frigid bitch chose to ignore the 1st, 9th, and 14th Amendments they were sworn to uphold, in favor of their own religious biases.
And since when do “hardworking taxpayers” get to pick and choose what legal social elements are supported by tax money? Do we get to NOT pay for parklands, if we object to public ownership of property {I actually like it, but some people don’t]? Do we get to NOT pay for armament, if we are against the war machine? Do we get to NOT pay for foreign aid to countries we disapprove of? Since when is belonging to a church a reason to excuse anyone from being a part of the body politic? That gives churches a whole lot of power that mere philosophical commitment to principle doesn’t get. I call no fair.
If there’s something about being in the body politic that bothers someone because of their religious predilections, how about we DEEM that none of their money is going toward abortions, and we can DEEM that none of mine is paying to upgrade our nuclear arsenal? Make y’all feel better now?
Um, how about. If you are a member of a church avoid seeking an abortion. Odd to say, State is stepping on toes of Church when church is kicking-a#s telling everyone what to do. WWJS? I don’t know but neither do you. He’d help people. People need help. They don’t need your help getting help, just get outa their way so they may help them self to help available.
Jesus lived in another time, even if he was a construct and not real. At any rate, he would not be respected today, unless he had a big PAC ; Maybe there would be interest. There is a better than modest chance that he would be offed somehow, if he advocated for the poor, and especially if he messed with the bankers and Wall streeters and other greedheads.
People who object to abortion lump all medical care for reproduction into one pile and complain — note the objection to providing health insurance that includes birth control services. If a woman does have an abortion and needs follow-up care, I’m pretty sure she can get it and have her care paid for, but that would bug the people who want to run our country according to their own religion, too.
Not exactly. In 2021, he introduced a 2022 budget that completely omitted the Hyde Amendment (it didn't repeal it). and a Labor, Health and Human Services bill unveiled in 2021 excludes the amendment. However, it has not been repealed.
john terence king ; They are not potential humans without joining with the ova. But ! if the obsession remains remember to rig an alarm that will go off during nocturnal emissions! What a wonderful life the sick and deranged could devise!
Power to the people ; will go away if we cannot vote! the partisan, religious majority is ending 'SETTLED LAW' favored by the majority that has never been reversed before! Your comments show a serious lack of understanding of the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court.
I do agree that local strength is important. But I also feel that national strength is important as well, lest we become compartmentalized. Our Nation is already divided. Not dealing with matters on a national level will further divide us.
The opposite is true. That is why they are weakening the power or the Federal Government over states while hypocritically Strengthening State's power over large, diverse, heavily Democrat cities. Black folk have been saying this for a while, because 'States rights' was the same way they tried to justify the continuation of slavery. History is simply repeating itself, but many don't see it because our true history is not taught. They are willing to retain power by force/terrorism, just like the South did with Jim Crow, followed the Civil War. Republicans are dismantling the protections of the Voting Rights Act that was established to protect those disenfranchised by Jim Crow. They know this history and are trying to take us all back... not just ppl of color. America has always been ruled by a handful of wealthy powerful white men and all the gains and attempts to extend the rights of its founding documents to the rest of us are actively being pulled back. Democracy is their Achilles Heel and they don't want the majority to come together and use it to defeat them. They want us to continue blaming and fighting each other and/or blaming our greatest weapon- Government/Democracy, while we fail to recognize and unite against our common enemy.
I wish other people would see this as clearly as you do.This current attack started in 1973 when Falwell and other Evangelicals formed ALEC, It gained momentum when Koch and other corporate glutton joined to form a truly evil coalition of far right evangelical idiocy with well planned rise of the 1% of 1%. to the detriment of all other Americans.
That coalition still uses race to attract white supremacist- Lee Atwater's version of Southern Strategy (https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/). You have So called Christians and Racists (darkness mingling with light) in a coalition, or rather quid pro quo, with billionaire and corporate interests. Christians in an unholy alliance, contradicting the word of God, in what they consider is an effort to serve God- being manipulated and following man rather than following their God! Clear case where the end doesn't justify the means, because the institution of Christianity is faltering and losing its credibility like the Supreme Court.
Great essay, fyiurban. And I agree with you. For my part, I want to work to end the "blaming and fighting each other" part, in my community. If, across the nation, people are doing this work, this peace will rise up through the power levels. We'll say, "No, we're not going to harm each other. We're going to help each other."
I totally agree with you. I see this as the same situation from the very beginning they have had rich old white men raging a war against the poor. There isn't an once of compassion or humanity that could be squeezed out of this 1%.
Carbon Copy.....truer words not spoken. The 1% rule this nation and they think we are their foot stools. They screw the 99% without mercy. God told them to do it.
Jul 2, 2022·edited Jul 2, 2022Liked by Robert Reich
Feels like we lost a war. My professional life's work -- administrative law -- has been wounded by this SCOTUS. Important Constitutional concepts, like due process, precedent, the preemption doctrine, the doctrine of non-delegation, separation of powers, have been tossed by a 6-3 majority made up of radicals.
I feel that the attorneys who have been on the right side of most issues have committed professional malpractice. I've discussed this previously. Lawyers need to make a record. At a minimum, Thomas should have recused himself from several of the decisions, and perhaps several others should have also. Lawyers who had standing should have filed motions for disqualification and requested open hearings. 28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge. Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his [or her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
From my perspective, several members of the current senate also need to be investigated as insurrectionists, starting with Hawley and Cruz.
At present, the senate is split 50-50. We need 67 to correct matters. Vote in Democrats and impeach those who were traitors/insurrectionists and it's possible.
I noticed that the verb is "shall", not "should", disqualify himself. That implies that recusal is mandatory, not elective, in cases where there is a conflict of interest.
If we were enforcing our laws on government employees, we'd have reason to either punish or expel several justices for numerous violations. Same with numerous members of Congress. Those expulsions would help prevent some of the most egregious, corrupt, antidemocratic actions by both bodies & help pass much needed policies.
So let's enforce the law against these criminals & traitors, & many of our problems will be solved, or at least alleviated.
Well, we as citizens can't realistically make a citizens' arrest (I wonder what would happen if we tried). All we can personally do is contact our congressmen, senators, president & AG & urge them to do their job of enforcing the law.
Daniel, I deeply appreciated your comment, particularly your 1st paragraph, wherein you list principal constitutional precepts I, for one, need to ensure I fully understand if I’m to continue to contribute to arguments for expanding the Court.
R’s supported College Republicans [often sending them in to “monitor” and report their professors for “bias”] for a few decades. College Democrats — good.
And attorney’s challenging the judiciary — wow! [Are they afraid to alienate judges?] Interesting to think on … The SCOTUS has needed that, for sure.
Your comments are spot on. I’m a lawyer who’s been in antitrust compliance for my entire career in “Baghdad by the Bay” to quote Herb Caen. Not much opportunity lately for this SCOTUS to do us direct damage, but Trump’s packing the lower federal courts with unqualified conservative ideologues is the gift that keeps on giving.
Thank you Daniel, Can any Lawyer who objects to the unconstitutional 6 using 28 S Code section 455? Wouldn't any licensed Lawyer, in any of the 50 States be able to file such objections? I still think the House of Representatives needs to file impeachment proceedings under Articles 1, Sections 2 and 8 and Article 2 Section 4
@Pat. Local politics is the home of authoritarian sheriffs, oppression of minorities, right wing primary candidates, resistance to national law and the incubator for conspiracy theories generated by moneyed interests, international oligarchs and foreign dictators.
And being involved and getting RID of the crackers is what Southern societies need to do. Nobody has posited anything that contradicts being actively involved locally.
As for civil rights, I absolutely do NOT endorse making those the province of local vicissitudes. Civil Rights, social, economic, political, must be universal the from edge to edge of the country.
I think holding Donald Trump accountable ,in and of itself, will take care of some of the problems that you mentioned above. Not doing so would set a dangerous precedent that I am afraid will toll the death knell for our democracy.
But more than just Trump. All government officials complicit in the subversion of our electoral system & overthrow of a duly elected government should be held accountable.
What's wrong with Socialism? Here's the definition: "According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another." It is the direct OPPOSITE of capitalism, which I would argue is failing us badly. Capitalism embraces that ludicrous "Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps," "Don't ask for help," and "Never apologize" garbage that is tearing this country apart.
We DO live together, and we SHOULD work together. Socialism will enhance that, and as some prosper, all prosper. Capitalism is destroying us, syphoning all the money to the top, and leaving us fighting each other over scraps. And yes, before you ask, I WILL accept a reasonable increase in my taxes if it helps someone who's struggling badly. If anything, the Democratic Party is not nearly far left enough.
Karla, I write because I think it is critical that we, like our western European counterparts, can distinguish between Democratic Socialism, that exclusively calls for a more equitable distribution of a nation’s wealth, and Socialism, that advocates for government control and ownership of the means of production. Whereas prosperous democracies, by and large, agree there is no better way than Capitalism to organize human labor for productivity, Western European governments, in particular, also recognize that Capitalism is not very good at distribution. Hence, for it to work effectively, it must be wedded to social democratic institutions that contain its excesses and moderate its self serving impulses. Regrettably, to the extent Americans remain ignorant of the distinctions between Democratic Socialism and Socialism, we also are susceptible to Republican’s conflation of the two to serve their own interests.
Maggie, I greatly appreciate your reply. While I have posted some version of this comment whenever presented with the opportunity, I haven’t figured out how to get it heard more broadly.
France has a large socialist part including communists. They seem to be doing ok. The French governments are afraid of their people unlike here where they ignore the people.
John, My understanding is that the Left Party in France is a democratic socialist political party established in 2009 after its founders’ departure from the Socialist Party. As stated in my original comment, Democratic Socialists persistently press for a more equitable distribution of a nation’s wealth.
John, Regrettably, in contrast to the European democracies, the Capitalism we know here in the States has become increasingly less regulated and contained. As more and more people are subjected to its raw, brute form, increasingly divorced from the regulatory containers of, say, the FDR and Lyndon Johnson eras that had leveled its effects, one ought to expect people invariably would suffer the worst consequences of it.
That said, I also would note that history has shown us that pure Socialism invariably devolves into a consolidation of power wherein civil society and the rule of law are subordinated to an individual.
I think the best is the combination of the two and it's called Social-Democracy. But first we have to save our Democracy, and after, we need to implement more Social programs, like most of the European countries.
@ MooGoo, I would submit that saving our democracy likely will entail Democratic leadership promptly advancing whichever provisions of the budget reconciliation package (BBB) can gain support from 50 Senators and presenting the legislation to voters as a downpayment of more to come if Dems hold the House and pick up at least 2 Senate seats. The legislation already has passed in the House. We’re just waiting on the Senate.
That's why in US we have the of the tyranny of the minority, aka the republican party :-) Are you aware that we are the only civilized country in the WORLD, where the President is elected not by popular vote, but by an outdated system called the electoral college, and you can get in a situation (2016) where you win the popular vote, by millions and still lose?
China has actually succeeded quite well combining both capitalism and socialism. They have a free market but the government regulates businesses from becoming too greedy or powerful. At the same time they provide social programs like free healthcare, free higher education & wage protections which raised millions of people out of poverty. It’s pretty remarkable! we should probably take a piece of their playbook?
I do think socialism is good, but you are disparaging capitalism which when operating correctly, under well established and orderly regulation works for the betterment if all. Reagan and followers were too stupid to see that and bought into the absurd 'trickle down economic theory'. Adam Smith, the 18th century author of The Wealth of Nations' so aptly pointed out. Without regulation greed takes over and destroys any free market. The great Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt saw this and invoked the anti-trust legislation to break up monopolies. There are no great Republicans today, and so far I haven't seen or heard any Democrat candidate that understands the problem.
AN individual who 'professes' belief in Jesus Christ, yet does NOT realise that his words, "Whenever two or more are gathered together, in my name, I will be with them": and, "You MUST Love and Care for each other, as I have done so, for you": actually ARE the words eventually encapsulating, "From each, according to their ability: TO each according to their NEED". Jesus WAS the first TRUE 'commune-ist', (given the correct pronunciation): and condemned the MISUSE/ABUSE of money; (ONLY in THIS, so-called, 'world' upon, and ALL around, the Earth); until THESE times. Humankind are the sole inhabitants on this planet which, unfortunately, have been dependent on artificial 'mediums of exchange; for their very existence.
No. As Fay Reid points out, Communism and Socialism are not the same. Your description of Communism is, as far as I remember, fairly accurate, and shows how harsh that system is. I would have to read Communist Manifesto to engage more fully, and I'll do that as soon as possible.
However, the fly in the ointment, which I don't see in your comment, is that "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" stage, where a strong man steps in to ensure order after the necessary violent overthrow of the ruling class. Once things are stable, he steps down and the citizens go on to create their Communist utopia. The glitch is, of course, that getting him to step down bit. Communism, IMO, is a system that is workable in thought but not in practice because of human nature.
Socialism and Communism are not opposites; Socialism and Capitalism are the ideologies that are diametrically opposed. I still assert that Capitalism is no longer working and is exacerbating our problems, and we need to work together instead of tearing each other apart.
I will agree, however, that it is Democratic Socialism, a mix of the best of Democracy and Socialism, that is the solution. I should have said that at first, and I admit to my error. However, I still maintain that even pure Socialism would be better than our current train wreck.
Karla.....not every communist believes in dictatorship of the proletariat. Maybe in Russia in 1917 that seemed like the only way since Western powers including the USA attacked Russia in an attempt to overthrow the Soviet government. Russia also suffered a long and bloody civil war.
You are so wrong. Communism IS NOT SOCIALISM the two are incompatible. As I have pointed out several times, there is not and never has been a communist government on Planet Earth. Communism has only worked in a very few, very small, hippy communes in the 60's and 70's. In communism no one owns anything, every thing is owned by the inhabitants who willingly share all goods and services. Russia just exchanged one form of authoritarianism (Czarist) for another form of Authoritarianism they called communist. The people did not EVER own the "combines" the controlling "commisariat' under the dictator (Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, Putin, etc) owned them. The same with China, Cuba, North Korea, etc). All authoritarian regimes with a dictator at the head. Socialism (whether you want to call it Democratic or not) has a government which regulates all businesses and industry (the government rarely owns these entities) The Socialist government imposes fair, but high taxes on all Citizens (including the wealthiest) and redistributes this tax income to take care of the needs of all citizens. There is free education, free health care, decent roads, and infrastructure. While no one is super rich, neither is anyone in need. Somehow, (I don't know the secret), everyone is content with what they have and they don't seem to be as greedy as other people, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Finland have some degree of Socialism and seem to do well. I do accept that each are relatively small nations, both in territory and populations, and somewhat more homogeneous in their population.
Pure socialism hasn't existed either. Having the services you speak of provided in full or in part by the society ( not by “ the government,” but by the our society controlling the government through democratic means) is best, to my mind, as as it is seen in European systems. Yes being smaller and deriving from more homogeneous ethnicities, and not from a disparate influx of people looking for their own piece of ownership and escaping aristocracy, makes maintaining a social contract easier. Not being fed a pastiche of lies helps, too.
Our Supreme Court at present is foisting a passel of edicts on us, “supported » by « decisions » that enumerate a PLETHORA of logical fallacies and questionable historical citations. The question of the day is, what are our options for fixing that broken court?
Workers do better in Norway than here. Working class here are treated like dirt. You get hurt on the job you better relegate yourself to poverty. I been there!
Calling a socialist a communist is like calling a kitty-cat a panther or an orangutang a man. Close is not similar. Socialists care about one another. There are several brands of communism supposedly working their way towards socialism—Cuba, China, N Korea—caring for one another may not be a priority.
Ouch, John Terence King, I know you are being ironic (throwing it back in their face) but don’t even go there. Brrr. “Some ignorant people” will take yours at face-value and jump on that bandwagon, nodding their heads and shaking their fists, thinking they found a like-minded ignoramus. Don’t let them entertain that anyone agrees with the dull, dark corners of their “minds.” Icky, don’t dump bait in front of those to figure they found their posse where it ain’t.
You do realize that PUBLIC libraries, PUBLIC schools, PUBLIC parks, PUBLIC transportation, PUBLIC roads, MUNICIPAL Police & Fire Departments, the Armed Forces, and more are SOCIALIST institutions? Big Business is always first in line to whine about needing subsidies to protect their position (Remember "Too big to fail?"). Socialism is just fine then. Farmers are subsidized -- and I'll bet most of them think Socialism is TERRIBLE. Except for themselves.
The full frontal assault by FASCISTS worries me a lot more. The US will probably never go full-socialist because too many people (like you) are terrified of it. Do you see Fascism as a problem?
I am assuming he may have some experience or history with a so called socialist government. Many Latin ppl from socialist countries have this fear/apprehension based on their exp. This gives them a negative perception of socialism. But what he should know is that socialism, like all other forms of Gov can be good or bad, depending on the priorities of its leader(s). We are all witnessing the corruption and exploitation of our Democratic Government due to self serving leaders that are owned by a few selfish and gready billionaires/corporate interests.
Good point. I've noticed several local residents on social media sites who aren't native-born Americans saying how horrible socialism is and how they (or their parents) emigrated to the US for a "fresh start." When asked how they feel about fascism, they uniformly reply that it won't happen (and that it's alarmist to bring it up).
European settlers weren't trying to escape socialism, but the kind of religious persecution that the Supreme Court & christofascists are trying to impose on us now. And most immigrants to US now are not trying to escape socialism but persecution, discrimination, repression, etc. from military dictatorships & hard-line authoritarian governments.
For the last 40 years plus we have been drifting toward corporatism, fascism & authoritarianism & away from the liberty, equality & democracy that used to define our nation.
First settlers in America were fleeing toleration in Holland believe it or not. They thought their children were becoming Dutch. They were English and wanted to remain "pure".
Socialism is really a great form of government for a relatively small nation. It is truly a government of the people, for the people, by the people. But it only works in relatively small groups, 10 to 20 million, not 350 million. GREED is the biggest enemy of mankind, and from the earliest stages of civilization the most difficult to overcome. We are in the throws of authoritarianism now. The lowest and most unkindly form of government ever invented, and one of the oldest forms. A strong, charismatic, dictator, convinces his fellow citizens that he, and he alone, is the answer to all their prayers, he will lead them to utopia where they are free of their perceived enemies (which he frequently says are the cause of all their troubles) The United States of America, was founded by a group of wealthy, white, American men, BUT these men were good philosophers and truly believed that all Citizens had the right to freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They weren't the 'what's in it for me' of the 1980's generation. They did not, unfortunately, trust their less wealthy and less educated fellow citizens to put the needs of the country ahead of themselves. I doubt they even though of educating them. Hence the electoral college and the franchisement of propertied men only. The current crop of greedy white autocrats is trying as best they can to reverse the education of the masses and return them to the poor compliant laborers, who hale their tyrant with their dying breath.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think a measure of social responsibility is absolutely necessary to a “ civilized” society. What we now term Democratic socialism ( and it includes regulated capitalism). Harder to enforce in such a large country,,, we tend to form our own tribes and lose sight of the whole,,, but if enough of us understand, we can enforce it democratically… But that is possible only if we are educated as to what we are doing and why. If we are fed lies and we swallow them, we are in trouble.. That is why BOTH education AND a press with integrity is critically necessary to maintaining a free society that resists oligarchy.
Absolutely! Poor hopeless people who have been fed lies from the cradle on will die for you! This is a a reason for religious beliefs as far back as I can see. Once you become a priest or wealthy you are in a better position to exploit these beliefs and people! Who other than a poor uneducated (or educated with only one side) would believe that you should die for this person's wealth? A King, Queen, President, Dictator? Not my King! Not my Queen! Not my President! And the dictator needs to be put down!
You are mistaken about the countries people leave in order to come here. They leave economically struggling countries, and HOT countries, and countries that offer little in the way of opportunity for their kids, but they don’t leave Western European countries with a strong socialist orientation. No more so than OUR people leave here to go there. Get your facts straight. [And PLEASE do not mistake Russia and China for ACTUAL communist or socialist leaning governments. They are autocratic, oligarchic dictatorships, straight and simple.]
You may be right on that point if Putin's friend (Trump) gets elected president in 2024. He does not want to make America great again; he wants to empower all the oligarchs. Socialism and Communism are great on paper, but in practice they don't work well because of one thing, greedy men/women. On the other hand, Capitalism works well because its driving force is GREED. Greed if controlled is not bad. Remember that Capitalism works well as long as businesses are discouraged by the government from forming MONOPLIES and when Capitalism makes an effort to be fair by sharing part of its profits by paying fair wages. Fair wages can be determined by negotiating with an employee's union. During the last several decades business have managed to eliminate many unions and likewise become stingy in sharing their increasing profits. In essence business owners have lost control of their greed. This is what Jesus says about the RICH, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a RICH man to enter the kingdom of God". He is talking about those men and women who have not controlled their greed. During these modern times businessmen and women throughout the world have lost control of their greed. A nation with a fast-declining middle class will harvest serious problems. Our country has the majority of its wealth owned by 1% of the population. Our middle class has
been declining at a fast pace. We are already seeing the problems in the streets of our large cities and small towns. Our government is basically controlled by the Oligarchs. The Oligarchs write laws that favor them and then have the Congressmen and Senators that they put in office by spending millions of dollars on their campaign pass the laws. Capitalism in our country is not the compassioned Capitalism that we had in the pass. If we lose our freedom as you predict, it will be because we were hooked winked by the OLIGARCHS.
I dont subscribe to the premise that DEMOCRATIC socialism has no role. But mix a socialistic ethos with regulated capitalism ( ask Bernie about those) and you get a workable system. Ask any number of European democracies that do it.
The beneficiaries of any Governmental system are determined by its leadership. If Communist and/or Socialist leaders prioritize the wellbeing of the many, over selfish gain, they would work for the people. As we all should plainly see, even a Democracy, where power is supposed to belong to the people, can be corrupted and exploited by selfish and greedy leaders.
"The beneficiaries... are determined by its leadership" -- or lack thereof. A leadership vacuum on 1 side definitely benefits some other side (there could be more than 2).
The Constitution incorporates the risk of "tyranny by the minority" -- i.e., the Electoral College -- and that's just where we are.
You don’t make much sense. It’s good that you don’t vote. I’m pretty sure my ancestors came here to escape a potato famine and among all the Democrats I know, not one is a socialist.
Why do you say Bernie Sanders is a socialist? He doesn't say that; imo you need to show how what he says doesn't jibe with what he does.
Special interest pandering? You mean like catering to Big Anything and the ultra-rich? You know, like the 2017 tax cuts, Tax Code loopholes, off-shore accounts, things like that. Hardly exclusive to Democrats.
Jan.....Sanders is a socialist. Big deal. Half of European leaders are socialists. We don't even have a labor party here to stick up for workers. Dems and Republicans depend on wealthy special interests to get elected.
No, no it started with FDR when he created social security which I am sure you will collect in time. Or maybe send your SSA check back and refuse Medicare.
Thanks, but (see below) didn’t the Illuminati and the Grand Lodges come from Europe and people fled their pernicious grasp? Sorry I’m not up on this stuff. Mom threw out my Q-Anon library.
Todd....we are all disgusted with status quo! Do we have to wait for a crisis to get anywhere? Probably we do and it is brewing as we speak. The fight will be against fascism IMO. Forget about China or Russia. The demons we face are right here.
Yes, I ,totally agree. The mainstream media are not broadcasting with a sense of urgency that this grave situation requires. Biden & co must take off the gloves and fight for us! The choice is fascism or democracy. PERIOD. FULL STOP.NOW
Maybe with what has been revealed by the Jan 6 committees' investigation, we will see more Republicans have a change of views. Their constituents have needs that will not be served too. Things that are being tampered with or removed affect them too.
Well, there was some movement on gun safety legislation, but it was probably a calculated concession, so they can tell the voters that they are working to keep them safe while keeping their second amendment rights intact. In my opinion, they operate as a well-coordinated team, choosing whom will be leading on certain issues- the ultimate goal to give as little ground as possible but give just enough so that they don't have a voter revolt on their hands. I feel that this coordination is done ultimately with the monied interests that fund their elections, consistent with the conservative agenda that is being promulgated by their dark money groups. Wow, this ended up sounding somewhat like a conspiracy theory of sorts. Unfortunately, the establishment democrats also can not stray too far from the monied interests that support their elections either.
Remember when everyone laughed when Hillary said there was a "vast right-wing conspiracy" going on. Turns out she was right. It is a long-term, intricate, slow-moving coup that has been ongoing since at least the 1950s. They began with the schools, and now are poised to take down the entire nation. We should have listened to her.
And abetted through indoctrination via these conservative think tanks and associations. I see evidence of it in the Jan 6 testimonies when these Republicans testify that the constitution is divinely inspired.
Good point, Jim. I found that completely scary! And that guy would still vote for Trump! Once again, Thomas Paine: "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."
Karla Von Huben ; I never doubted that what she said was true, But to be in government necessitates that a 'war chest' must be built up ; more today than when Hillary entered into the arena. Anyone who takes corporate money is part of the cabal. It is not as workable to avoid pac money or big money or dark money.. Bernie almost scaled that cliff. It is ironic that Hillary is said to have been the better choice; when the better choice was never able to win the primary because of corruption.
This is why I'm angry at the DNC, DLCC, DSCC and the party "leadership." Poll after poll showed Bernie beating Trump in a landslide. Love him, hate him, think he's a jerk, too old, too far left, too out of touch, whatever, Bernie could have whipped that wannabe dictator. So what did the party do? Forced Hillary on us, along with all of her baggage. Most of it is imaginary, or made up out of whole cloth, or facts twisted to suit the GOP, but we have a very strong, unyielding patriarchy in this country that simply will NEVER vote for "wimmin," who belong in the bedroom or the kitchen. I voted for her and kept my fingers crossed because I couldn't believe Americans would be stupid enough to vote for that narcissistic, bigoted clown. But they voted for that narcissistic, bigoted clown, the Electoral College handed him the office, and here we are.
Karla Von Huben — I live in Vermont. Have met Bernie. Have watched Bernie for decades. Have friends who are his neighbors. My dad was a newsman who covered Bernie and they call each other by their frst names. Bernie is THE REAL DEAL. Yes, he’s ambitious, but he wants to achieve his agenda, not amass riches and personal power. Of course he has earned a good living since being elected to Congress. But his ambitions are to fulfill the principles he’s carried since his youth. He’s not perfect, but what you see is what you get; what he says is what he means. He is definitely a one-of-a-kind. People don’t have to believe me, but if they don’t know as much about him as I do, I don’t have to listen to them.
The Democratic machine gave us Hillary because they figured it was “her turn.” Absolutely outrageous, and it gave us Donald, I will not soon forgive that. [Even though, when it came down to it, I voted for her — and remember Bernie encouraged his people to vote for her so we could head Donald off at the pass — but then the Electoral College bollixed it all up — argh!]
The Supreme Court that we are lamenting on these very threads is a direct result of THAT.
I agree, I also voted for her because she is far and away better than the Liar loser .She got the popular vote but our unDemocratic Electoral College have us tRump! They've got us tied up.. We just keep losing with a booby trapped system! Citizens United seals the deal on top of it.
It is not a theory and you are right, Jim, it is ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) founded in 1973 by Evanigelicals, then co-opted in the late 70's/early 80's by very wealthy corporations. They hold conferences two or three times a year in which they WRITE legislation which is then passed to their minions in State Legislatures (mostly small red States) to be enacted verbatim for the good of corporate America. They keep their minions in line by financing the re-election and threats of non-financing if anyone steps out of line. Among the attendees were Ted Cruz. Mike Mulvaney, and Ben Carson.
Not exactly a conspiracy here, but this is why I finally switched from Independent to Democrat after the BBB failed. It was watching the likes of Murphy and Gottheimer working to split the BBB legislation apart, setting it up for Manchin to tank the social programs part of it. I remember watching Gottheimer talk on CNN, and if it wasn't for the caption below him, I would have thought I was listening to a corporate lobbyist. Ever since Biden proposed the BBB agenda, MSM has portrayed it as too far left and that it would not be supported by the majority. And the slant still continues with The New York Times Magazine saying that the progressive wing of the democratic party is the reason the "corporate" democrats, The New York Times Magazine refers to them as moderates, are not succeeding. I specifically registered as a Democrat so I could help move the party off its "dead center" to a progressive party whose goals stand with helping ordinary Americans. As I've said before, in 2016 as an Independent, I would have voted for Bernie in a heartbeat!
The corporate media is not our friend, in spite of it trying to appear that way. Sometimes the coverage looks so good, and facts are on point. But it's what they leave out that really matters. F'rinstance, the real 'inflation' story of corp's raising prices just because they can, or Oil/gas producers/suppliers, or meatpackers monopolies gouging consumers ; There is no reporting on these things, Some pundits are heavily invested in things I mention here. Much of media has been owned by wealthy interests who want to appear progressive.
Interesting observation. The thought in the back of my mind when I wrote can not stray is that the money goes away if they don’t follow the agenda. Will not stray seems to indicate fear of losing future money. Is that what you mean? I guess thinking about it that way, can not would apply to republicans and will not to democrats. Good point.
Jim Tedford ; Too true! Too bad we can't get 'em All on RICO charges! (both sides of the aisle, especially Manchin and Synema, the 'double agents'.). At least get talented screenwriters who can make spoofs of our government follies and how dark money has enabled it all with 'citizens united"! (And NATO did not originally want Ukraine to join because of corruption!??)!!! Curiouser and Curiouser...
I was thinking of constituents and the pressure they can exert on their 'representatives'. the Court is making a very big 'deal' that is not going to please most. Besides, staying in power will not mean much if their present jobs don't exist any more. Authoritarians don't allow their subjects to have representation. the entire landscape will be unrecognizable!
Can't different Senators carve out exceptions to the filibuster for different issues? Collins, Murkowski, and Manchin could vote for an exception for pro-choice legislation. Note, NOT pro-abortion legislation. Idk anyone who's "pro-abortion." I know many who are pro-choice; imo that's the key. Republicans will always spin it to be about abortion -- & media lets them.
It would be nice if all Dem. Senators would speak as a bloc but that's a forlorn hope.
That's what I thought I said. Imo "forlorn hope" doesn't even rise to the level of wishful thinking.
Yes, vote. And between now and Nov. 8 keep the inappropriate SCOTUS rulings in front of people. From Citizens United down to last week. Don't let people forget. And, maybe more importantly, don't let them normalize any of it.
It sounds as though you live in a place similar to me -- where voting is straightforward in a district that isn't gerrymandered to neutralize your vote and where local and state officials do their jobs honestly.
The only problem with this is that a huge percentage of the population (I believe I saw varying from 70 to 78 percent) don't vote! The Evangelicals have been stacking the deck all the while both the Democrats and the Republicans have been busy insuring you can't vote for anyone but them! I think they all should be put in the very prisons they made for us.
It's past time for Democrats in office to channel the anger Democratic voters feel and make a significant impact of legislation before we lose everything.
If only there were no money in politics. That is the central issue. As long as this will not be fixed, Democrats will have no more incentives than Republicans to think and act in the perspective of the common good. They will talk about it and then will try to change things at the margin only. You do not want to disoblige your donors, and the last thing these corporate donors themselves want is a powerful citizenry willing to curb corporations maximizing profits at any cost.
Chuck Schumer seems weak. He doesn't need to play dirty, but he should play hardball, and not let Mitch McConnell and Joe Manchin walk all over him. Maybe Democrats need to choose a different Senate majority leader.
I think Congress needs to rein in what has become a rogue Supreme Court, and not just roll over and accept its arbitrary and capricious rulings. Right now, we don't have democracy, we have oligarchy, rule by six unelected judges pursuing their own personal whims, inventing bogus "legal doctrines" to rationalize their outrageous behavior. Personally, I think all six of them, and Roberts is no better than the others, even if he pretends to be an institutionalist, should be impeached and removed from office for really, really bad behavior.
More realistically, Congress can enact term limits for judges and refuse to allow judges to unconstitutionally repeal Acts of Congress. Yes, Congress should codify Roe and environmental protections into law, but it needs to reform the courts as well. Otherwise, it will just be playing whack-a-mole. More terrible decisions are on tap.
Democrats seem more interested in airing "both sides" of the issues, rather pointing out the deficits and the outright lies promulgated by the Republicans. They also need to pay attention to the bread and butter issues, as John Fetterman is doing in Pennsylvania. If Democrats message along the lines of the issues that are most important to blue collar workers, then there will be better contests. Having said all that, why do Democrats cave to people like McConnell and his ilk?????
I don't see Democrats, independents and some republicans caving to tRumpism, or 'airing both sides' the latter being the domain of the Corporate owned mediia. Not at all, especially with what is being revealed now with the 'Supreme' court and the Jan 6th investigation revelations.
The Dems have been open to forging consensus policies, and Republicans have diligently worked on those policies, and then Republicans won’t vote for them! But if they Do pass into law with only Democratic votes in Congress and the Senate, they are still full of Republican modifications and amendments [witness the conditions inserted into and allowed to remain in Obamacare—especially the predominance of insurance companies]. Dems keep TRYING to make common cause with R’s [everyone TALKS a good spiel for “bipartisanship,” but for the R’s that just means Dems have to cave to them, over an over.] Dems have been far too feckless, and R’s are seeking One Party Control. That’s the long and short of it. [I am FINALLY seeing Dems act like they have their sh** together in the Jan. 6th Committee — let’s hope].
… and for the record, too, Dems rejected R’s attempt to stymie the Jan 6th Committee with obstructionist members. Hooray for Dems finally standing up for the purpose of the hearing and heading the R’s off at the pass on this one. THAT is why the committee is able to get some work done. This morning, I watched a legislative committee hearing replay from 2019 on the contents of the Mueller Report, and Matt Gaetz did NOTHING but go off on a tangent, refusing to shut his yap when gaveled to be quiet. Obstructionist, obstructionist, obstructionist. Democrats MUST find a way to deal with the Dirty Tricks gang in its modern iteration. If Congress does not take up the issues that the SCOTUS is trashing, we are going to see the final overturning of the wonderful form of government we’ve managed to hold onto for centuries. We were warned — we should heed those warnings. If it’s not about governing, but only about power, we will lose it. {One telling point — R’s constantly try to push the idea that Dems want the government to exert “power” over ordinary people, but it is R’s who intrude on our bedrooms and our very bodies, and insist on parading their piety in our faces. Who is obsesses with “power”? Look to that to see who we have to worry about. When they show you their true colors, believe them … }
Pat Goudey O'Brien; I remember that hearing when obstructionist Matt Gaetz went on and on in spite of the gavel. I liked that Nancy Pelosi would have none of that and refused people like him being seated on the Jan 6th committee. It was a pleasure to not have my stomach in knots while people like Jim Jordan and Lindsey Graham wasted everyone's time and a chance to get the government's work done fairly!
After what Mitch McConnell did with the SCOTUS nominations — stonewalling Garland, ramming through Coney Barrett — they have some damned nerve criticizing Pelosi for rejecting big-mouth, out-of-control obstructionists on a committee charged with ferreting our TREASON.
Pat Goudey O'Brien ; It was a relative pleasure to watch even though very serious hearings of the most important investigation of our time, with our opponents wanting to block it.. They would stop it, if they could. If that is not tyranny what is?
You are so right about looking at the motives of the Rs screaming that the Dems want power, while they insinuate themselves into our bedrooms . In psychology it’s called “projection” - accusing others of doing what you are doing.
Obama care is a misnomer as it was not drawn up by Obama. He supported it, but did not develop it. A conservative 'think tank' put it together. It was a massive giveaway to the insurance industry.akso called the 'Affordable Care Act', It was neither affordable nor caring. My kids could not afford the deductibles and had to go without until they had better jobs.
I would put a ‘like’ on that, except I hate the truth of it.
But voters don’t want a history lesson or a lecture to find out what they’re voting about. Memes and catchy advertising carry the day. Dems need better messaging — not to mention getting out of the pockets of Wall Street — to get us out of this mess. I know Progressives currently throw in with Dems. Maybe Progressives need to flex more muscle, too.
But without a Parliamentary system, it’s tough for third parties to be heard. More’s the pity.
I remember seeing Obama standing to talk, flanked by two insurance reps. I knew then that the insurance industry had hijacked his plans. Medicare for all is the answer in my opinion.
I agree that Democrats often get the 'short end of the stick' when making deals or 'compromising' with The wealthier Republicans. Some Republicans have even posed as Democrats (Manchin and Synema). To give a good example of 'compromise'. They should be fined or sued.
I don’t know on what grounds they can be fined or sued, but calling them out and voting them out — we need to, if we can do it.
A problem we have is, it’s too easy to “demonize” the Left by yelling “socialism” these days — used to be Pinko.
The arguments on the Left need better framing and presentation. People are more afraid of the word “socialist” than they are “oligarch.” I’m at a loss to understand why …
@Pat. It is a generational thing. Our grandparents' generation embraced unionism and the Marshall Plan for Europe. Then we came along in the Soviet era and were taught every day in school that Communism is socialism (not true at all) and taught that socialism is authoritarianism (not true at all). But it is hard to leave the lessons of our childhood behind...
For sure, our cultural indoctrination, and now the opposition , had stronger messaging. My brother said it’s easier to sell a simple lie than a complex truth, and that is a simple truth! Dems and the entire Left need to be better at messaging, but I worry that it’s tough to talk to people who want a slogan or a meme, and that’s as far as they’ll listen.
Exactly. I believed for almost 20 years that Communism in China was straight out of my George Orwell's book "1984"! Then some 40+ years later I got to go to Shanghai and frankly most Chinese have a better understanding of our history than we do. They also have a tremendous amount of freedom.
Trying to "like" that, can't for some reason. So, "I like that comment."
Maybe many people don't know what an oligarch is. Imo "fascist dictator" would be a good comparison.
One of Dems' many problems for YEARS has been the inability to frame the narrative. Basically they've been all REactive instead of even a teensy bit PROactive.
My thinking is that progressives should welcome the word socialism. Talk about what it is and what it is not. Talk about the word oligarchy and what that means;; talk about fascism and what that word means. Actually define these words and debunk the boogey man. The biggest problem in our country is education. Most general education does not cover these concepts. I think if all Democratic, progressive candidates began to use those words and define them, the boogey man could leave.
Sorry but if you state truth or facts to a Trumpanzy they immediately start spewing shit! That's why (if you were so inclined) if you wanted to help a Trumpanzy who's head was on fire all you would have to do is put a fan in front of his face and then tell him his head was on fire! The shit spewed out of his mouth would put the fire out and I guarantee he would deny it ever happened!
Not to be a Debbie Downer, but don't relax too much. First, of all, Biden and Schumer reinstated a "blue slip" tradition that allows senators to put a hold on judicial nominees for their states, after McConnell had abolished it. Seems like they were setting themselves up for blackmail. Well, Biden just made a deal with McConnell that he would appoint a virulent anti-abortion, pro corruption judge in Kentucky if McConnell promises to stop blocking his nominees for United States attorney there. Kentucky Democrats are outraged. This was reported in Slate:
OH, I saw that. I happen to be a very out-spoken person {was a local journalist — community newspapers in Massachusetts and Vermont} — and I’m not shy about writing my opinions to the White House. If you don’t like what Biden’s doing {and I DON’T}, tell him!!!
You might be right, but it is DRIVING ME NUTS!!!!! I do see equivocation from the media, including the Washington Post, including Opinions from Anti-choice writers.
Anti-choice writers have a right to be heard. I hope rational discussion can prevail, because without resorting to religious argument, the anti-choice side has very little validity regarding when to begin to consider delivering instead of aborting.
In the early 80's old white Dems realized that being the party of inclusion (more women, more minorities) meant a smaller share of the public trough pie for themselves. That's the Dem Party according to me.
In '09 I heard Obama say that we don't begrudge CEO's their 8 figure salaries and bonuses. I wanted to call and say "Who's 'We,' White Man?" but I wasn't sure he'd think it was funny.
I don't think pro-choice demonstrations will help. But women uniting to go on a purchasing boycott will: women make most of the day-to-day purchasing decisions in this country. Let's see what the alt-right Supremes think about my bodily autonomy when I have a nice little nest-egg to finance my (or a friend's, or a stranger's) trip to Canada for "tourism" if necessary. Buy only food and medicine and actual necessities. Wear the clothes in your closet. Use the library. Stock up on contraception.
Did you see Spike Lee's movie, Chi-raq? The women of Chicago go on a sex strike to stop a gang war. It's even in verse like the Lysistrata. Spike Lee is an American treasure! I highly recommend the film.
@Sandra. Ha ha ha ha ha! I long ago stopped thinking of women as a coherent voting block. No, they are just as diverse and just as radical as their men in the same communities.
I don't understand the nature of your remark, in relation to Lysistrata. Are you saying that not all women would agree to withdraw for sex? If only half of them decided not to participate in the sex strike, there would still be millions remaining who would.
@Sandra B. I'm saying that half of the people you target ARE women. Women on the right hold the same or worse opinions than their men do. If you are trying to change the behavior of people on the right, having Democratic women withhold sex from Democratic men won't have that effect and right wing women who have the same opinions as their men won't go along.
Please, just google Lysistrata, by Aristophanes. You're blinded by your partisanship. I, too am a free-thinking liberal, and I allow that every sexual relationship has its own reality, regardless of politics.
@Sandra B. I read that in the 8th grade. In terms of blinded, you realize that the play is widely considered a (typical of ancient Greece) misogynistic farce, though your favorite author is not kind to the men in the play either!
Yes, but there are millions—millions—of women who love being married and say "yes" to sex any time their partners give the signal. What would happen if all THOSE millions suddenly said "no" with one voice? Never dismiss the good expecting the perfect. Read Lysistrata, by Aristophanes.
Sandra B ; millions—millions—of women who love being married and say "yes" to sex any time their partners give the signal. What could go wrong if that perfection is tampered with? Also, what if some of that resulted unwanted pregnancies? why assume that dismissing the perfect could be any good!? (And how would they all be suddenly saying 'no' with one voice?)
My remark was intended to be facetious, not really serious. Whether a woman "loves being married" or has a husband she responds to when he "gives the signal" is irrelevant. denying sex to men as punishment for anything our 'Supreme' court has foisted on us is not a real solution and would not apply to many girls and women who have been raped or who have an unwanted pregnancy for whatever reason.
In an ideal world, women would have lives that allow them to bond with each child, nurse it until it weaned itself, get community/village support for the care of her family, and we would end child apartheid by closing the schools and building villages.
Chuck Schumer is not doing his job. He just "phones it in". He has tools and resources for managing his majority in the Senate, but he does not use them. Robert Caro's book "Master of the Senate" describes Lyndon Johnson as the Senate majority leader. That is the kind of person we need now.
A 50-50 Senate with two of the 50 in the Dem aisle very wobbly is not a “majority” that can be “managed.” The only reason Dems have a “majority” is that the Vice President has tie-breaking power. This is a not a position of power, It is a cliff that can be clung to, barely. Get real. We need to vote Dem in November to unlock the gridlock, if people will do it and see what comes of it — If we have a Democrat in the White House and we saddle him or her with the kind of obstructionist Republicans in Washington today, we will not get the balance that bipartisanship used to promise. We will get more of the sort of thing Mitch McConnell does, which is literally “anything he can get away with.”
I agree totally! I think it’s intellectual laziness that some Democrats are guilty of! Now the Supreme Court has practically gutted the EPA’S ability to monitor and regulate toxic emissions! This ruling was based on a law suit from West Virginia! Let’s face it,Joe Manchin got what he wanted!
I was around when Johnson was doing his thing. He’s no secret, and he was as much of an arm-twister as McConnell. As a matter of fact, they both have a lot of the same skills.
YES, we need a lot more savvy and skill in the fray Left of the aisle, during times of majority and minority {McConnell is wielding the power of his “minority” just fine, thank you very much.}
But I’m not sure, before maybe the transition during the Reagan administration, that there’s ever been as clear a set of Marching Orders for Senators or Reps of one party or the other as there are today. Especially in the Republican Party. So, Master Shmaster. I’m not buying that a Democrat could do today what Johnson did then [and I’m not sure I’d advocate for all of Johnson’s shenanigans, either — but what’s happening today is scary, so … maybe … Aaagh. Must one surrender all integrity?]
The vote got us the presidency and two republicans calling themselves democrats in the Senate, but it's still (only) nominally a democratic majority. More voters means more democrats. Right now, we're paralyzed, but we aren't directly under a would-be dictator exercising control over a gang of thugs who want to destroy the government. We need more democrats voting and we'll get control of the government in such a way that things will begin to happen that we like.
“Where has that gotten us”? Well, it’s been a pattern that people think if they maintain a mix of Dems and Rs, we’ll get some sort of balance. Used to have some validity. Not since R’s have been on the road to Zero Sum politics {“We do not win unless our opponents lose.” The point of that attitude is “There is no win-win.” Bipartisanship is about win-win. Even the constant Republican drumbeat about getting Dems to be bipartisan is an excuse for them to get in there and obstruct — see Obamacare. See the way they behave in Congressional hearings…. }
When I say we need to vote Dems in, I mean a blue wave, not a few here and there.
AND for sure, locally, statewide, the American people need to pay attention to current attempts to invalidate the ballot box and throw everything into legislatures to decide elections. That is the antithesis of what the country was founded to do. The individual vote was supposed to matter. Look it up.
So, looking at “where it has goten us,” I say not far enough. Do it more
That is definitely not true, Mr. RJ. What is needed is a Dem supermajority to get shyte done.
You are 100% correctamundo, however, in saying that Dems have a big problem with messaging. The R's have perfected emotional gut punch messaging that sticks in your head and connects with some issue about which the MAGA's either loathe or love--in any event the messaging usually boils up some rightwing voter energy.
And then there are the Dems, futzing around explaining--in an intellectual sort of way--how their bill will do X and Y without the toxic side effect of the R bill...yada, yada, blahblahblah. No energy; no passion. R's and Indies tune it out. We need punchy, short TRUTHFUL messaging and I have no idea why it seems to be beyond the DNC.
Speaking of the DNC--they are a coterie of complacent idiots. I say kick them out and get a new batch in. The DNC has grown altogether too comfy with the status quo.
It isn't working for the dems because the once and future Trumpers block every attempt they make. Pay attention. What we need right now is to have a huge majority of democrats in both houses, so they can count on the vote when they take legislation to the floor. Currently, because Joe Biden is president, the republicans are on strike. We only have half a government that wants to accomplish anything. Consensus is in suspension. We need critical mass.
I’m not a Dem, either. I’m far more progressive. I live in Vermont. The Dem machine drives me nuts, and the centrist alliance with Wall Street even nuts-er. BUT, moving our country in the direction of responsiveness to all aspects of our society is better than letting us go over to the kind of people we’re seeing on the SCOTUS right now.
YES, Dems need to get their messaging act together, and figure out who represents their position best ..
I worry that ennui will prevail, and discouraged people will leave the field and it will only get worse. I do NOT want “more of the same” either. Entrenched Democrats who are happy to work close to power but not willing to fight for change drive me up a wall.
But if we don’t keep pushing the stone UP the hill, it will roll back over us, so … what’s our alternative….?
Not many democrats are doing their job. Least of all Joe Biden, who simply does not want to rock the boat. We need a Supreme Court that can be respected. Those who lied at their hearings should face perjury charges. The filibuster has to go.
It is a hard lesson for liberals and Democrats: Elections have consequences; the coalition failure in the 2016 election leading to Trump's three SCOTUS picks will haunt us for decades. Multiple analyses documented that third party voters and those who declared themselves “too liberal” to vote for Hillary Clinton so did not vote at all made the difference in the swing states that went to Trump in 2016. One such person told me she voted Green to “to make a statement.” I responded that her statement was that she preferred Trump to Clinton so we got Trump and his three SCOTUS picks. Liberals should have learned that lesson in Florida in 2000 but declined. Think what a different world this would be if Gore won in 2000 and Clinton in 2016. Progressive policies depend on coalitions.
You are absolutely correct. And it’s even more frightening in this year’s mid-terms. Any democrat who doesn’t vote is asking to be governed by a right wing conservative, at best, or a fascist, seditionist unhinged from reality, at worst. It’s not “making a statement” that is constructive in any way.
Unfortunately since no one will ever send in the military and put all these parasites in prison it comes to this. More Democrats who will also start lining their pockets just like the Repubs, who agree 100% to wage war after war to line their buddies pockets or scum that want to completely wipe out democracy and start Armageddon! What a choice. I would prefer to wake up the 70% and have them vote independent but that won't happen either so here I am having to agree with you so we can limp along staving off the inevitable rise of fascists nut jobs.
Don't forget. Trump's victory in the Electoral College was due to HRC's hubris. She's responsible for her own loss to trump for basically ignoring Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. When you combine that with the DNC's sabotage of Bernie in the primaries, it was a recipe for the disaster we are now suffering in the SCOTUS. Let's hope she stays home in 2024.
Idk whether it was her personal hubris or "campaign hubris" in general. I don't think you can let Obama off scot-free either -- didn't he say (later) he didn't push the Russian interference angle because he didn't think there was anything to worry about? Or Comey. Or MSM. Sins of omission, sins of commission. Plenty to go around.
Perhaps. However had she, or her campaign, not assumed those three states were a lock and she paid attention to them Obama, Comey and the russians would have been insignificant.
Agree. Imo it's the job of the campaign managers to read the tea leaves. The candidate is busy running and doesn't have time to take soundings on public opinion.
Trump's choices can be diluted by expanding the SC, which was last done in 1869 when there were 9 federal districts. Imo politicos should make the case that the court should have the same number of Justices as there are fed. districts. People can disagree but it's hard to prove pure political motivation.
1.4 million people voted for the Green Party candidate in 2016, a large percentage of them in "blue" states that Clinton won anyway; on the other hand, 4.4 million people, including people who would otherwise have voted for a relatively sane Republican candidate, voted for the Libertarian Party candidate.
Without Manchin and Cinema's votes democrats can't even get to 50 to do ANYTHING. All this talk about what the Senate SHOULD do isn't taking into account what the Senate CAN'T do. Anybody who thinks the Dems are in charge of the Senate has their head wedged. This apparent denial of the full truth here assures that we'll never even approach a real solution because we aren't even recognizing the true extent of the problem. We're screwed.
We're screwed is your contribution!? How about the fact that even Republicans are being affected by the findings of the Jan 6 committee? If Sens Collins and Murkowski are feeling bad about being 'misled' by nominees in their hearings statements about RoevWade ; maybe they would support carve outs in the filibuster to make changes to protect 'settled law' regarding women's rights to medical care and every citizen's rights to vote and have their votes count! One does not have to be very radical to support things like that. Just saying !
The Dems, and the president in particular, are afraid to call out the GOP for what it has become - a fascist party that cares only about power and doing whatever it takes to grab it. Name one act that benefits the working class Americans that is supported by the GOP. There are none. Biden has to point out that the GOP will not support any piece of legislation put forward by the Dems because they are afraid that the Dems legislation will help people and make Biden more popular, and the GOP is willing to vote AS A BLOC against it in spite of how this harms the electorate simply in the hope that, by preventing Biden from succeeding, they will regain power. This message has to be broadcase loud and clear, starting with Biden. Biden has to call McConnell and McCarthy what they are: authoritarians at best and in all likelihood neo-fascists. They do not hesitate to call the Dems socialists. Why will the Dems not call them exactly what they truly have become?
Yes yes yes. And talk about what fascism is where it got started and how it functions. Until he does that. They will continue to shout down and obstruct.
It might be very interesting -- and a sign of hope -- to track new voter registrations among the 18 to 25 year olds over the next month or so. I agree that our future rests with our young people. I hope the Inequality Media team can track this key metric.
You have no idea, Dr. Reich .... and Heather .... how you lift me up and keep me from falling into despair. Thank you from the bottom of my soul for your contributions in these outrageously unbalanced and troubled times.
The Supreme Court
Donald Trump
Impeachments
Indictments
Is there any possibility at all for accountability?
The poll illustrates the dogged dilemma facing not only Democrats, but the USA as a whole.
When, and how, will the American people take a stand against the evil forces that have pervaded our country?
Personally, I am disgusted with the status quo.
Something’s gotta give.
Soon
The only place we have any power is locally: With our families, in our neighborhoods, with our faith communities. But that power is tremendously effective.
Power to the Oeople ; It will not help us now! To stay in our communities and ignore our Federal Court! We need action against the Rogue 'Supreme ' court! We need a separation wall between church and state . The breach in the wall created by the Catholic majority on the Court has denied women and girl's health care rights and they will end other rights too!
@Laurie. You're right.
@ts1213. What church are you talking about having its toes stepped on? That concept is too bizarre to even be answered. Also, just by asking your first question you are on the wrong side of 400 years of history AND the major rationale for pioneers coming to the new world - escaping State-sponsored authoritarian religion. Also, the right wing resistance and undermining of healthcare, childhood nutrition support and child poverty is "ending the life of an innocent", actually many innocents, who are already born and struggling in our "free market" economy.
Ben, you are so very correct! Todays Republican Party resembles the European aristocracy that our ancestors fled from! Power & control is their main objective. And paying homage to wealthy corporate CEOs & Wall Street bankers! Retrumplicans won’t spend a nickel to feed hungry kids or poor seniors & immigrants! They are not true Americans but they are selfish disgusting politicians who lie for a mob boss play acting as TFG did as President!! They all along with their supporters are nothing more than fascist authoritarians.
ts1213 ; Sounds like you do not understand the Constitution or the Supreme court's oath to uphold it. Separation of church and state is unmistakable in there and a bedrock of freedom from religious tyranny! If you don't want an abortion don't have one! If you think the cost of abortion is expensive , wait til you see the fallout from all these kids and hapless mostly poor women having babies they can ill afford on many levels. It's like education ; if you think it's too expensive, try ignorance!
@Laurie. I make the mistake of sticking up for you when you can do it so much better yourself!
Ben R, Stockton ; It's never a mistake to stand up for me! Hahaha!
Ignorance is becoming the middle class mantra...
If not middle class, certainly the Religious right's!
The state should actually yank the 501c3 tax exemption of churches that meddle in government. The church has no business in government. And as for ending the life of an innocent? Ending abortion ends the life of a ten or twelve year old impregnated by her stepfather or “uncle” by rape, or the life of a mother who will not live if the entropic pregnancy continues.
Churches & other religious entities that get involved in politics should have their tax exemptions removed.
Governments should have a certain amount of authority to regulate the population during health crises, & churches should not be exempt. As a matter of fact, during the pandemic, church congregations & other religious gatherings have been among the worst spreader events.
We are not (yet) a theocracy, & we definitely don't want to become one. Please refer to the Dark Ages or islamist republics if you have any doubts about that.
Um-Casey and the Hyde amendment have *ALWAYS* withheld Federal money from funding abortions. Your straw man is in your mind.
When it’s an accidental pregnancy or the result of rape, incest, or even date rape. It’s all part of a woman’s healthcare choices. What gives any man, whether a priest or politician, the right to deny any woman’s right to her own decision about her own healthcare & life! None that’s how many! The Dems will Find a Way to Codify abortion rights into law. They must find a way to add 4 more moderate justices to SCOTUS in order to balance the scales & to match the # of appellate jurisdictions! Nothing less would be acceptable, 1 for Obama’s stolen Justice & 3 more nominated by Biden to match tRump’s appointments. That would be fair! I believe the AG & Justice Dept should present a list of ethics rules that Justice Roberts can present to the others. Plus determine a judicial punishment for Thomas & his ruthless wife’s activism.
This isn't just about paying for abortions, that just requires a decision. This is about forcing ALL women no matter what the circumstances to continue an unwanted pregnancy because five misogynistic men and one frigid bitch chose to ignore the 1st, 9th, and 14th Amendments they were sworn to uphold, in favor of their own religious biases.
Basically true, though how you would know she is “frigid” is beyond me…is misogyny limited to men?
Your comment shows your ignorance. Please educate yourself.
This is probably the most civil political forum you'll find on the internet.
And since when do “hardworking taxpayers” get to pick and choose what legal social elements are supported by tax money? Do we get to NOT pay for parklands, if we object to public ownership of property {I actually like it, but some people don’t]? Do we get to NOT pay for armament, if we are against the war machine? Do we get to NOT pay for foreign aid to countries we disapprove of? Since when is belonging to a church a reason to excuse anyone from being a part of the body politic? That gives churches a whole lot of power that mere philosophical commitment to principle doesn’t get. I call no fair.
If there’s something about being in the body politic that bothers someone because of their religious predilections, how about we DEEM that none of their money is going toward abortions, and we can DEEM that none of mine is paying to upgrade our nuclear arsenal? Make y’all feel better now?
We pay for wars we do not support.
What is your preference?
Um, how about. If you are a member of a church avoid seeking an abortion. Odd to say, State is stepping on toes of Church when church is kicking-a#s telling everyone what to do. WWJS? I don’t know but neither do you. He’d help people. People need help. They don’t need your help getting help, just get outa their way so they may help them self to help available.
Jesus lived in another time, even if he was a construct and not real. At any rate, he would not be respected today, unless he had a big PAC ; Maybe there would be interest. There is a better than modest chance that he would be offed somehow, if he advocated for the poor, and especially if he messed with the bankers and Wall streeters and other greedheads.
ts1213 ; 'The author of life' is your religious belief and irrelevant for the court's consideration.
What makes you think that women and girls who need abortions have them paid for by taxpayers' money? I guess you never heard of the Hyde Amendment.
People who object to abortion lump all medical care for reproduction into one pile and complain — note the objection to providing health insurance that includes birth control services. If a woman does have an abortion and needs follow-up care, I’m pretty sure she can get it and have her care paid for, but that would bug the people who want to run our country according to their own religion, too.
Only if she has health insurance.
Not exactly. In 2021, he introduced a 2022 budget that completely omitted the Hyde Amendment (it didn't repeal it). and a Labor, Health and Human Services bill unveiled in 2021 excludes the amendment. However, it has not been repealed.
What about retroactive abortions for C. Thomas and his idiot wife?
Next time you jerkoff think about potential humans you are destroying.
john terence king ; They are not potential humans without joining with the ova. But ! if the obsession remains remember to rig an alarm that will go off during nocturnal emissions! What a wonderful life the sick and deranged could devise!
When is a fetus a human being? When you masterbate to a photo of some porno queen are you not killing a billion potential human beings/
Power to the people ; will go away if we cannot vote! the partisan, religious majority is ending 'SETTLED LAW' favored by the majority that has never been reversed before! Your comments show a serious lack of understanding of the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court.
And when I thought that the Supreme Court decisions couldn't get any scarier, they'll be taking a major crack at voting rights in their next session!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/30/us-supreme-court-state-elections-legislatures
I don't doubt it, Jim Tedford! Seems like they are making a bee line for that!
Jim....when the right wing deals with women, gays, blacks and immigrants they will come for the rest of us just like in Germany.
Yes, this is truly frightening.
I do agree that local strength is important. But I also feel that national strength is important as well, lest we become compartmentalized. Our Nation is already divided. Not dealing with matters on a national level will further divide us.
@Todd. You're right.
The opposite is true. That is why they are weakening the power or the Federal Government over states while hypocritically Strengthening State's power over large, diverse, heavily Democrat cities. Black folk have been saying this for a while, because 'States rights' was the same way they tried to justify the continuation of slavery. History is simply repeating itself, but many don't see it because our true history is not taught. They are willing to retain power by force/terrorism, just like the South did with Jim Crow, followed the Civil War. Republicans are dismantling the protections of the Voting Rights Act that was established to protect those disenfranchised by Jim Crow. They know this history and are trying to take us all back... not just ppl of color. America has always been ruled by a handful of wealthy powerful white men and all the gains and attempts to extend the rights of its founding documents to the rest of us are actively being pulled back. Democracy is their Achilles Heel and they don't want the majority to come together and use it to defeat them. They want us to continue blaming and fighting each other and/or blaming our greatest weapon- Government/Democracy, while we fail to recognize and unite against our common enemy.
I wish other people would see this as clearly as you do.This current attack started in 1973 when Falwell and other Evangelicals formed ALEC, It gained momentum when Koch and other corporate glutton joined to form a truly evil coalition of far right evangelical idiocy with well planned rise of the 1% of 1%. to the detriment of all other Americans.
That coalition still uses race to attract white supremacist- Lee Atwater's version of Southern Strategy (https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/). You have So called Christians and Racists (darkness mingling with light) in a coalition, or rather quid pro quo, with billionaire and corporate interests. Christians in an unholy alliance, contradicting the word of God, in what they consider is an effort to serve God- being manipulated and following man rather than following their God! Clear case where the end doesn't justify the means, because the institution of Christianity is faltering and losing its credibility like the Supreme Court.
Great essay, fyiurban. And I agree with you. For my part, I want to work to end the "blaming and fighting each other" part, in my community. If, across the nation, people are doing this work, this peace will rise up through the power levels. We'll say, "No, we're not going to harm each other. We're going to help each other."
I totally agree with you. I see this as the same situation from the very beginning they have had rich old white men raging a war against the poor. There isn't an once of compassion or humanity that could be squeezed out of this 1%.
Carbon Copy.....truer words not spoken. The 1% rule this nation and they think we are their foot stools. They screw the 99% without mercy. God told them to do it.
It is, if we use it well. Local politics are the birthplace of national trends. …
Feels like we lost a war. My professional life's work -- administrative law -- has been wounded by this SCOTUS. Important Constitutional concepts, like due process, precedent, the preemption doctrine, the doctrine of non-delegation, separation of powers, have been tossed by a 6-3 majority made up of radicals.
I feel that the attorneys who have been on the right side of most issues have committed professional malpractice. I've discussed this previously. Lawyers need to make a record. At a minimum, Thomas should have recused himself from several of the decisions, and perhaps several others should have also. Lawyers who had standing should have filed motions for disqualification and requested open hearings. 28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge. Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his [or her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
From my perspective, several members of the current senate also need to be investigated as insurrectionists, starting with Hawley and Cruz.
At present, the senate is split 50-50. We need 67 to correct matters. Vote in Democrats and impeach those who were traitors/insurrectionists and it's possible.
As a start, support college Democrats. https://democrats.org/cda/
Field Team 6 has a database of millions of unregistered women who trend Democratic. Contact: Mervis Reissig merv4peace@gmail.com
I noticed that the verb is "shall", not "should", disqualify himself. That implies that recusal is mandatory, not elective, in cases where there is a conflict of interest.
If we were enforcing our laws on government employees, we'd have reason to either punish or expel several justices for numerous violations. Same with numerous members of Congress. Those expulsions would help prevent some of the most egregious, corrupt, antidemocratic actions by both bodies & help pass much needed policies.
So let's enforce the law against these criminals & traitors, & many of our problems will be solved, or at least alleviated.
Over 181 judges across the country last I heard have been guilty of this very crime.
I absolutely agree but how do we enforce people to do their job?
Well, we as citizens can't realistically make a citizens' arrest (I wonder what would happen if we tried). All we can personally do is contact our congressmen, senators, president & AG & urge them to do their job of enforcing the law.
Daniel, I deeply appreciated your comment, particularly your 1st paragraph, wherein you list principal constitutional precepts I, for one, need to ensure I fully understand if I’m to continue to contribute to arguments for expanding the Court.
Terrific info, perspective, and statement.
R’s supported College Republicans [often sending them in to “monitor” and report their professors for “bias”] for a few decades. College Democrats — good.
And attorney’s challenging the judiciary — wow! [Are they afraid to alienate judges?] Interesting to think on … The SCOTUS has needed that, for sure.
Your comments are spot on. I’m a lawyer who’s been in antitrust compliance for my entire career in “Baghdad by the Bay” to quote Herb Caen. Not much opportunity lately for this SCOTUS to do us direct damage, but Trump’s packing the lower federal courts with unqualified conservative ideologues is the gift that keeps on giving.
Herb Caen. Chron.
I'm on the other coast, but once upon a time....
Can’t ‘like’ that comment, but certainly do agree [‘like’ is way too weighted a response]. Totally agree.
Thank you, Mr. Solomon
Thank you Daniel, Can any Lawyer who objects to the unconstitutional 6 using 28 S Code section 455? Wouldn't any licensed Lawyer, in any of the 50 States be able to file such objections? I still think the House of Representatives needs to file impeachment proceedings under Articles 1, Sections 2 and 8 and Article 2 Section 4
Too late now to affect the cases already decided.
The lawyers who represent the parties are the only ones who have standing to object.
Thamk you, it's good to have someone with real knowledge to explain
@Pat. Local politics is the home of authoritarian sheriffs, oppression of minorities, right wing primary candidates, resistance to national law and the incubator for conspiracy theories generated by moneyed interests, international oligarchs and foreign dictators.
YES, that, TOO. Which is why we cannot leave “local politics” just to them!!!
Imagine living in the deep south and dealing with cracker sheriff who belongs to KKK must be a thrill for black people.
And being involved and getting RID of the crackers is what Southern societies need to do. Nobody has posited anything that contradicts being actively involved locally.
As for civil rights, I absolutely do NOT endorse making those the province of local vicissitudes. Civil Rights, social, economic, political, must be universal the from edge to edge of the country.
I think holding Donald Trump accountable ,in and of itself, will take care of some of the problems that you mentioned above. Not doing so would set a dangerous precedent that I am afraid will toll the death knell for our democracy.
But more than just Trump. All government officials complicit in the subversion of our electoral system & overthrow of a duly elected government should be held accountable.
Let's vote Bernie in 2024? He has a couple of good years left!
I like Elizabeth Warren. She is full of ideas, plans, energy & fight necessary to confront & shame these bullies.
What's wrong with Socialism? Here's the definition: "According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another." It is the direct OPPOSITE of capitalism, which I would argue is failing us badly. Capitalism embraces that ludicrous "Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps," "Don't ask for help," and "Never apologize" garbage that is tearing this country apart.
We DO live together, and we SHOULD work together. Socialism will enhance that, and as some prosper, all prosper. Capitalism is destroying us, syphoning all the money to the top, and leaving us fighting each other over scraps. And yes, before you ask, I WILL accept a reasonable increase in my taxes if it helps someone who's struggling badly. If anything, the Democratic Party is not nearly far left enough.
Karla, I write because I think it is critical that we, like our western European counterparts, can distinguish between Democratic Socialism, that exclusively calls for a more equitable distribution of a nation’s wealth, and Socialism, that advocates for government control and ownership of the means of production. Whereas prosperous democracies, by and large, agree there is no better way than Capitalism to organize human labor for productivity, Western European governments, in particular, also recognize that Capitalism is not very good at distribution. Hence, for it to work effectively, it must be wedded to social democratic institutions that contain its excesses and moderate its self serving impulses. Regrettably, to the extent Americans remain ignorant of the distinctions between Democratic Socialism and Socialism, we also are susceptible to Republican’s conflation of the two to serve their own interests.
I think this is a very important point and one that needs to be discussed publicly and amplified by the media.
Maggie, I greatly appreciate your reply. While I have posted some version of this comment whenever presented with the opportunity, I haven’t figured out how to get it heard more broadly.
A mixed economy that blends democratic socialism with free market capitalism has proven to be the most successful form of government.
France has a large socialist part including communists. They seem to be doing ok. The French governments are afraid of their people unlike here where they ignore the people.
John, My understanding is that the Left Party in France is a democratic socialist political party established in 2009 after its founders’ departure from the Socialist Party. As stated in my original comment, Democratic Socialists persistently press for a more equitable distribution of a nation’s wealth.
Very nicely explained, chapeau!
Grow up in poverty and see how you like capitalism!
John, Regrettably, in contrast to the European democracies, the Capitalism we know here in the States has become increasingly less regulated and contained. As more and more people are subjected to its raw, brute form, increasingly divorced from the regulatory containers of, say, the FDR and Lyndon Johnson eras that had leveled its effects, one ought to expect people invariably would suffer the worst consequences of it.
That said, I also would note that history has shown us that pure Socialism invariably devolves into a consolidation of power wherein civil society and the rule of law are subordinated to an individual.
I think the best is the combination of the two and it's called Social-Democracy. But first we have to save our Democracy, and after, we need to implement more Social programs, like most of the European countries.
@ MooGoo, I would submit that saving our democracy likely will entail Democratic leadership promptly advancing whichever provisions of the budget reconciliation package (BBB) can gain support from 50 Senators and presenting the legislation to voters as a downpayment of more to come if Dems hold the House and pick up at least 2 Senate seats. The legislation already has passed in the House. We’re just waiting on the Senate.
Two more seats in the senate and we have a chance to save our democracy, given that the House remains democratic :-)
The People should exercise their power-in-numbers to support leaders and legislation. That benefits and empowers the many vs the few.
That's why in US we have the of the tyranny of the minority, aka the republican party :-) Are you aware that we are the only civilized country in the WORLD, where the President is elected not by popular vote, but by an outdated system called the electoral college, and you can get in a situation (2016) where you win the popular vote, by millions and still lose?
China has actually succeeded quite well combining both capitalism and socialism. They have a free market but the government regulates businesses from becoming too greedy or powerful. At the same time they provide social programs like free healthcare, free higher education & wage protections which raised millions of people out of poverty. It’s pretty remarkable! we should probably take a piece of their playbook?
https://www.rt.com/news/549349-china-world-financial-center/
China is not a good example, we're talking about democracies :-)
I do think socialism is good, but you are disparaging capitalism which when operating correctly, under well established and orderly regulation works for the betterment if all. Reagan and followers were too stupid to see that and bought into the absurd 'trickle down economic theory'. Adam Smith, the 18th century author of The Wealth of Nations' so aptly pointed out. Without regulation greed takes over and destroys any free market. The great Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt saw this and invoked the anti-trust legislation to break up monopolies. There are no great Republicans today, and so far I haven't seen or heard any Democrat candidate that understands the problem.
Regulated capitalism mixed with democratic socialism has worked the best, for us & for other countries.
Hear hear. You are so right.
AN individual who 'professes' belief in Jesus Christ, yet does NOT realise that his words, "Whenever two or more are gathered together, in my name, I will be with them": and, "You MUST Love and Care for each other, as I have done so, for you": actually ARE the words eventually encapsulating, "From each, according to their ability: TO each according to their NEED". Jesus WAS the first TRUE 'commune-ist', (given the correct pronunciation): and condemned the MISUSE/ABUSE of money; (ONLY in THIS, so-called, 'world' upon, and ALL around, the Earth); until THESE times. Humankind are the sole inhabitants on this planet which, unfortunately, have been dependent on artificial 'mediums of exchange; for their very existence.
Do you come here to chirp, or just poop on the windshields? I can’t tell what you’re trying to say - pantheistic Illuminati ?
Absolutely! There is something wrong with your wiring if you can't share your fellow humans suffering!
Here, here Karla.
No. As Fay Reid points out, Communism and Socialism are not the same. Your description of Communism is, as far as I remember, fairly accurate, and shows how harsh that system is. I would have to read Communist Manifesto to engage more fully, and I'll do that as soon as possible.
However, the fly in the ointment, which I don't see in your comment, is that "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" stage, where a strong man steps in to ensure order after the necessary violent overthrow of the ruling class. Once things are stable, he steps down and the citizens go on to create their Communist utopia. The glitch is, of course, that getting him to step down bit. Communism, IMO, is a system that is workable in thought but not in practice because of human nature.
Socialism and Communism are not opposites; Socialism and Capitalism are the ideologies that are diametrically opposed. I still assert that Capitalism is no longer working and is exacerbating our problems, and we need to work together instead of tearing each other apart.
I will agree, however, that it is Democratic Socialism, a mix of the best of Democracy and Socialism, that is the solution. I should have said that at first, and I admit to my error. However, I still maintain that even pure Socialism would be better than our current train wreck.
Karla.....not every communist believes in dictatorship of the proletariat. Maybe in Russia in 1917 that seemed like the only way since Western powers including the USA attacked Russia in an attempt to overthrow the Soviet government. Russia also suffered a long and bloody civil war.
You are so wrong. Communism IS NOT SOCIALISM the two are incompatible. As I have pointed out several times, there is not and never has been a communist government on Planet Earth. Communism has only worked in a very few, very small, hippy communes in the 60's and 70's. In communism no one owns anything, every thing is owned by the inhabitants who willingly share all goods and services. Russia just exchanged one form of authoritarianism (Czarist) for another form of Authoritarianism they called communist. The people did not EVER own the "combines" the controlling "commisariat' under the dictator (Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, Putin, etc) owned them. The same with China, Cuba, North Korea, etc). All authoritarian regimes with a dictator at the head. Socialism (whether you want to call it Democratic or not) has a government which regulates all businesses and industry (the government rarely owns these entities) The Socialist government imposes fair, but high taxes on all Citizens (including the wealthiest) and redistributes this tax income to take care of the needs of all citizens. There is free education, free health care, decent roads, and infrastructure. While no one is super rich, neither is anyone in need. Somehow, (I don't know the secret), everyone is content with what they have and they don't seem to be as greedy as other people, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Finland have some degree of Socialism and seem to do well. I do accept that each are relatively small nations, both in territory and populations, and somewhat more homogeneous in their population.
Pure socialism hasn't existed either. Having the services you speak of provided in full or in part by the society ( not by “ the government,” but by the our society controlling the government through democratic means) is best, to my mind, as as it is seen in European systems. Yes being smaller and deriving from more homogeneous ethnicities, and not from a disparate influx of people looking for their own piece of ownership and escaping aristocracy, makes maintaining a social contract easier. Not being fed a pastiche of lies helps, too.
Our Supreme Court at present is foisting a passel of edicts on us, “supported » by « decisions » that enumerate a PLETHORA of logical fallacies and questionable historical citations. The question of the day is, what are our options for fixing that broken court?
Workers do better in Norway than here. Working class here are treated like dirt. You get hurt on the job you better relegate yourself to poverty. I been there!
That is a lot of bullshit.
Calling a socialist a communist is like calling a kitty-cat a panther or an orangutang a man. Close is not similar. Socialists care about one another. There are several brands of communism supposedly working their way towards socialism—Cuba, China, N Korea—caring for one another may not be a priority.
Those globalizing Jews are at it again! Jews....communists...what's the difference right TS?
Ouch, John Terence King, I know you are being ironic (throwing it back in their face) but don’t even go there. Brrr. “Some ignorant people” will take yours at face-value and jump on that bandwagon, nodding their heads and shaking their fists, thinking they found a like-minded ignoramus. Don’t let them entertain that anyone agrees with the dull, dark corners of their “minds.” Icky, don’t dump bait in front of those to figure they found their posse where it ain’t.
Ummmm, George Orwell? Or Aldous Huxley?
None of that is what anyone proposes for Democratic Socialism. But I hope it was fun to write it all down. You went to all that trouble.
You do realize that PUBLIC libraries, PUBLIC schools, PUBLIC parks, PUBLIC transportation, PUBLIC roads, MUNICIPAL Police & Fire Departments, the Armed Forces, and more are SOCIALIST institutions? Big Business is always first in line to whine about needing subsidies to protect their position (Remember "Too big to fail?"). Socialism is just fine then. Farmers are subsidized -- and I'll bet most of them think Socialism is TERRIBLE. Except for themselves.
The full frontal assault by FASCISTS worries me a lot more. The US will probably never go full-socialist because too many people (like you) are terrified of it. Do you see Fascism as a problem?
I am assuming he may have some experience or history with a so called socialist government. Many Latin ppl from socialist countries have this fear/apprehension based on their exp. This gives them a negative perception of socialism. But what he should know is that socialism, like all other forms of Gov can be good or bad, depending on the priorities of its leader(s). We are all witnessing the corruption and exploitation of our Democratic Government due to self serving leaders that are owned by a few selfish and gready billionaires/corporate interests.
Good point. I've noticed several local residents on social media sites who aren't native-born Americans saying how horrible socialism is and how they (or their parents) emigrated to the US for a "fresh start." When asked how they feel about fascism, they uniformly reply that it won't happen (and that it's alarmist to bring it up).
The miliary is socialistic. You get sick they take care of you. They feed you. They put clothes on your back. Is that not socialism?
I love and applaud your comments about fascism.
European settlers weren't trying to escape socialism, but the kind of religious persecution that the Supreme Court & christofascists are trying to impose on us now. And most immigrants to US now are not trying to escape socialism but persecution, discrimination, repression, etc. from military dictatorships & hard-line authoritarian governments.
For the last 40 years plus we have been drifting toward corporatism, fascism & authoritarianism & away from the liberty, equality & democracy that used to define our nation.
I sadly agree.
First settlers in America were fleeing toleration in Holland believe it or not. They thought their children were becoming Dutch. They were English and wanted to remain "pure".
Well, that is interesting to contemplate
Socialism is really a great form of government for a relatively small nation. It is truly a government of the people, for the people, by the people. But it only works in relatively small groups, 10 to 20 million, not 350 million. GREED is the biggest enemy of mankind, and from the earliest stages of civilization the most difficult to overcome. We are in the throws of authoritarianism now. The lowest and most unkindly form of government ever invented, and one of the oldest forms. A strong, charismatic, dictator, convinces his fellow citizens that he, and he alone, is the answer to all their prayers, he will lead them to utopia where they are free of their perceived enemies (which he frequently says are the cause of all their troubles) The United States of America, was founded by a group of wealthy, white, American men, BUT these men were good philosophers and truly believed that all Citizens had the right to freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They weren't the 'what's in it for me' of the 1980's generation. They did not, unfortunately, trust their less wealthy and less educated fellow citizens to put the needs of the country ahead of themselves. I doubt they even though of educating them. Hence the electoral college and the franchisement of propertied men only. The current crop of greedy white autocrats is trying as best they can to reverse the education of the masses and return them to the poor compliant laborers, who hale their tyrant with their dying breath.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think a measure of social responsibility is absolutely necessary to a “ civilized” society. What we now term Democratic socialism ( and it includes regulated capitalism). Harder to enforce in such a large country,,, we tend to form our own tribes and lose sight of the whole,,, but if enough of us understand, we can enforce it democratically… But that is possible only if we are educated as to what we are doing and why. If we are fed lies and we swallow them, we are in trouble.. That is why BOTH education AND a press with integrity is critically necessary to maintaining a free society that resists oligarchy.
Absolutely! Poor hopeless people who have been fed lies from the cradle on will die for you! This is a a reason for religious beliefs as far back as I can see. Once you become a priest or wealthy you are in a better position to exploit these beliefs and people! Who other than a poor uneducated (or educated with only one side) would believe that you should die for this person's wealth? A King, Queen, President, Dictator? Not my King! Not my Queen! Not my President! And the dictator needs to be put down!
You are mistaken about the countries people leave in order to come here. They leave economically struggling countries, and HOT countries, and countries that offer little in the way of opportunity for their kids, but they don’t leave Western European countries with a strong socialist orientation. No more so than OUR people leave here to go there. Get your facts straight. [And PLEASE do not mistake Russia and China for ACTUAL communist or socialist leaning governments. They are autocratic, oligarchic dictatorships, straight and simple.]
So true, Pat.
You may be right on that point if Putin's friend (Trump) gets elected president in 2024. He does not want to make America great again; he wants to empower all the oligarchs. Socialism and Communism are great on paper, but in practice they don't work well because of one thing, greedy men/women. On the other hand, Capitalism works well because its driving force is GREED. Greed if controlled is not bad. Remember that Capitalism works well as long as businesses are discouraged by the government from forming MONOPLIES and when Capitalism makes an effort to be fair by sharing part of its profits by paying fair wages. Fair wages can be determined by negotiating with an employee's union. During the last several decades business have managed to eliminate many unions and likewise become stingy in sharing their increasing profits. In essence business owners have lost control of their greed. This is what Jesus says about the RICH, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a RICH man to enter the kingdom of God". He is talking about those men and women who have not controlled their greed. During these modern times businessmen and women throughout the world have lost control of their greed. A nation with a fast-declining middle class will harvest serious problems. Our country has the majority of its wealth owned by 1% of the population. Our middle class has
been declining at a fast pace. We are already seeing the problems in the streets of our large cities and small towns. Our government is basically controlled by the Oligarchs. The Oligarchs write laws that favor them and then have the Congressmen and Senators that they put in office by spending millions of dollars on their campaign pass the laws. Capitalism in our country is not the compassioned Capitalism that we had in the pass. If we lose our freedom as you predict, it will be because we were hooked winked by the OLIGARCHS.
I dont subscribe to the premise that DEMOCRATIC socialism has no role. But mix a socialistic ethos with regulated capitalism ( ask Bernie about those) and you get a workable system. Ask any number of European democracies that do it.
Ronald Raygun, my hero. He helped destroy the labor movement in the USA.
😖
The warning is valid. I hope you are wrong about the timing.
The beneficiaries of any Governmental system are determined by its leadership. If Communist and/or Socialist leaders prioritize the wellbeing of the many, over selfish gain, they would work for the people. As we all should plainly see, even a Democracy, where power is supposed to belong to the people, can be corrupted and exploited by selfish and greedy leaders.
"The beneficiaries... are determined by its leadership" -- or lack thereof. A leadership vacuum on 1 side definitely benefits some other side (there could be more than 2).
The Constitution incorporates the risk of "tyranny by the minority" -- i.e., the Electoral College -- and that's just where we are.
You don’t make much sense. It’s good that you don’t vote. I’m pretty sure my ancestors came here to escape a potato famine and among all the Democrats I know, not one is a socialist.
My mother was from Ireland and I am a socialist. Democrats are weak IMO.
You are in the wrong party ts1213. Try Proud Boys.
Why do you say Bernie Sanders is a socialist? He doesn't say that; imo you need to show how what he says doesn't jibe with what he does.
Special interest pandering? You mean like catering to Big Anything and the ultra-rich? You know, like the 2017 tax cuts, Tax Code loopholes, off-shore accounts, things like that. Hardly exclusive to Democrats.
Jan.....Sanders is a socialist. Big deal. Half of European leaders are socialists. We don't even have a labor party here to stick up for workers. Dems and Republicans depend on wealthy special interests to get elected.
TS....you are so ignorant.
No, no it started with FDR when he created social security which I am sure you will collect in time. Or maybe send your SSA check back and refuse Medicare.
Thanks, but (see below) didn’t the Illuminati and the Grand Lodges come from Europe and people fled their pernicious grasp? Sorry I’m not up on this stuff. Mom threw out my Q-Anon library.
HAHAHAHAHAH
YOU HAVE NO IDEA, OR UNDERSTAND WHAT SOCIALISM IS!!! The ignorance never stops in this nation. Who are you, anyway???
I am a communist and proud of it. What are you...a jerkoff rightwing idiot?
Don’t use words that you don’t understand. Explain.
Todd....we are all disgusted with status quo! Do we have to wait for a crisis to get anywhere? Probably we do and it is brewing as we speak. The fight will be against fascism IMO. Forget about China or Russia. The demons we face are right here.
Yes, I ,totally agree. The mainstream media are not broadcasting with a sense of urgency that this grave situation requires. Biden & co must take off the gloves and fight for us! The choice is fascism or democracy. PERIOD. FULL STOP.NOW
We have to have a crisis to get action.
Imo we have to have RECOGNITION that there's a crisis.
We have multiple major crises, yet still no action.
Unless Manchin and Sinema agree to carve out filibuster, our only hope is gaining a super majority in the Senate. Everyone already knows this. 🙄
Maybe with what has been revealed by the Jan 6 committees' investigation, we will see more Republicans have a change of views. Their constituents have needs that will not be served too. Things that are being tampered with or removed affect them too.
Yes. People forget that Republican women get abortions too. Even Republican women who say they're "pro-life".
Well, there was some movement on gun safety legislation, but it was probably a calculated concession, so they can tell the voters that they are working to keep them safe while keeping their second amendment rights intact. In my opinion, they operate as a well-coordinated team, choosing whom will be leading on certain issues- the ultimate goal to give as little ground as possible but give just enough so that they don't have a voter revolt on their hands. I feel that this coordination is done ultimately with the monied interests that fund their elections, consistent with the conservative agenda that is being promulgated by their dark money groups. Wow, this ended up sounding somewhat like a conspiracy theory of sorts. Unfortunately, the establishment democrats also can not stray too far from the monied interests that support their elections either.
Remember when everyone laughed when Hillary said there was a "vast right-wing conspiracy" going on. Turns out she was right. It is a long-term, intricate, slow-moving coup that has been ongoing since at least the 1950s. They began with the schools, and now are poised to take down the entire nation. We should have listened to her.
And abetted through indoctrination via these conservative think tanks and associations. I see evidence of it in the Jan 6 testimonies when these Republicans testify that the constitution is divinely inspired.
Good point, Jim. I found that completely scary! And that guy would still vote for Trump! Once again, Thomas Paine: "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."
Karla Von Huben ; I never doubted that what she said was true, But to be in government necessitates that a 'war chest' must be built up ; more today than when Hillary entered into the arena. Anyone who takes corporate money is part of the cabal. It is not as workable to avoid pac money or big money or dark money.. Bernie almost scaled that cliff. It is ironic that Hillary is said to have been the better choice; when the better choice was never able to win the primary because of corruption.
This is why I'm angry at the DNC, DLCC, DSCC and the party "leadership." Poll after poll showed Bernie beating Trump in a landslide. Love him, hate him, think he's a jerk, too old, too far left, too out of touch, whatever, Bernie could have whipped that wannabe dictator. So what did the party do? Forced Hillary on us, along with all of her baggage. Most of it is imaginary, or made up out of whole cloth, or facts twisted to suit the GOP, but we have a very strong, unyielding patriarchy in this country that simply will NEVER vote for "wimmin," who belong in the bedroom or the kitchen. I voted for her and kept my fingers crossed because I couldn't believe Americans would be stupid enough to vote for that narcissistic, bigoted clown. But they voted for that narcissistic, bigoted clown, the Electoral College handed him the office, and here we are.
Karla Von Huben — I live in Vermont. Have met Bernie. Have watched Bernie for decades. Have friends who are his neighbors. My dad was a newsman who covered Bernie and they call each other by their frst names. Bernie is THE REAL DEAL. Yes, he’s ambitious, but he wants to achieve his agenda, not amass riches and personal power. Of course he has earned a good living since being elected to Congress. But his ambitions are to fulfill the principles he’s carried since his youth. He’s not perfect, but what you see is what you get; what he says is what he means. He is definitely a one-of-a-kind. People don’t have to believe me, but if they don’t know as much about him as I do, I don’t have to listen to them.
The Democratic machine gave us Hillary because they figured it was “her turn.” Absolutely outrageous, and it gave us Donald, I will not soon forgive that. [Even though, when it came down to it, I voted for her — and remember Bernie encouraged his people to vote for her so we could head Donald off at the pass — but then the Electoral College bollixed it all up — argh!]
The Supreme Court that we are lamenting on these very threads is a direct result of THAT.
I agree, I also voted for her because she is far and away better than the Liar loser .She got the popular vote but our unDemocratic Electoral College have us tRump! They've got us tied up.. We just keep losing with a booby trapped system! Citizens United seals the deal on top of it.
1954, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS? 😐
It’s in full swing
It is not a theory and you are right, Jim, it is ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) founded in 1973 by Evanigelicals, then co-opted in the late 70's/early 80's by very wealthy corporations. They hold conferences two or three times a year in which they WRITE legislation which is then passed to their minions in State Legislatures (mostly small red States) to be enacted verbatim for the good of corporate America. They keep their minions in line by financing the re-election and threats of non-financing if anyone steps out of line. Among the attendees were Ted Cruz. Mike Mulvaney, and Ben Carson.
Thought this was a good article: https://www.nationofchange.org/2022/07/04/how-the-american-legislative-exchange-council-turns-disinformation-into-law/
Jim Tedford ; excellent analysis! ; 'Just because your paranoid does not mean you're not being followed'. Consprracies exist!
https://prospect.org/politics/moderate-democrats-are-anything-but/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Abortion+Seekers+Must+Protect+Themselves-and+Their+Data+%7C+Prospect+Weekend+Reads&utm_campaign=DRAFT+Weekend+Prospect+Reads+07022022
Not exactly a conspiracy here, but this is why I finally switched from Independent to Democrat after the BBB failed. It was watching the likes of Murphy and Gottheimer working to split the BBB legislation apart, setting it up for Manchin to tank the social programs part of it. I remember watching Gottheimer talk on CNN, and if it wasn't for the caption below him, I would have thought I was listening to a corporate lobbyist. Ever since Biden proposed the BBB agenda, MSM has portrayed it as too far left and that it would not be supported by the majority. And the slant still continues with The New York Times Magazine saying that the progressive wing of the democratic party is the reason the "corporate" democrats, The New York Times Magazine refers to them as moderates, are not succeeding. I specifically registered as a Democrat so I could help move the party off its "dead center" to a progressive party whose goals stand with helping ordinary Americans. As I've said before, in 2016 as an Independent, I would have voted for Bernie in a heartbeat!
The corporate media is not our friend, in spite of it trying to appear that way. Sometimes the coverage looks so good, and facts are on point. But it's what they leave out that really matters. F'rinstance, the real 'inflation' story of corp's raising prices just because they can, or Oil/gas producers/suppliers, or meatpackers monopolies gouging consumers ; There is no reporting on these things, Some pundits are heavily invested in things I mention here. Much of media has been owned by wealthy interests who want to appear progressive.
Imo the phrase is "will not stray," not "can not stray..."
Interesting observation. The thought in the back of my mind when I wrote can not stray is that the money goes away if they don’t follow the agenda. Will not stray seems to indicate fear of losing future money. Is that what you mean? I guess thinking about it that way, can not would apply to republicans and will not to democrats. Good point.
That works too. What I was thinking was that "will not" is a choice, while "can not" implies they're somehow forced to stay on the path.
Jim Tedford ; Too true! Too bad we can't get 'em All on RICO charges! (both sides of the aisle, especially Manchin and Synema, the 'double agents'.). At least get talented screenwriters who can make spoofs of our government follies and how dark money has enabled it all with 'citizens united"! (And NATO did not originally want Ukraine to join because of corruption!??)!!! Curiouser and Curiouser...
You're assuming there will be screenwriters and filmmakers, who are mostly liberal, left to make these films.
@Laurie. I wish I could see such a trend. The radicals have captured the primary process though and no "regular" candidate can get through.
I was thinking of constituents and the pressure they can exert on their 'representatives'. the Court is making a very big 'deal' that is not going to please most. Besides, staying in power will not mean much if their present jobs don't exist any more. Authoritarians don't allow their subjects to have representation. the entire landscape will be unrecognizable!
Laurie; Still, fools rush in!
DW ; Ignorance is bliss!
It does seem to be affecting Independents, who are moving away from Trump & the Republican Party.
Vote them out
Monica- bad idea. Don't need more Republicans.
I meant vote Republicans out...
Can't different Senators carve out exceptions to the filibuster for different issues? Collins, Murkowski, and Manchin could vote for an exception for pro-choice legislation. Note, NOT pro-abortion legislation. Idk anyone who's "pro-abortion." I know many who are pro-choice; imo that's the key. Republicans will always spin it to be about abortion -- & media lets them.
It would be nice if all Dem. Senators would speak as a bloc but that's a forlorn hope.
Wishful thinking, Jan...wishful thinking.
You know what happens when you don't do your job, right? You get fired.
That's what we need to do this November. The only way they're going to listen is if we turn out in overwhelming numbers to vote them all out.
That's what I thought I said. Imo "forlorn hope" doesn't even rise to the level of wishful thinking.
Yes, vote. And between now and Nov. 8 keep the inappropriate SCOTUS rulings in front of people. From Citizens United down to last week. Don't let people forget. And, maybe more importantly, don't let them normalize any of it.
It sounds as though you live in a place similar to me -- where voting is straightforward in a district that isn't gerrymandered to neutralize your vote and where local and state officials do their jobs honestly.
*thumbsup.gif*
My apologies if I misconstrued your meaning, or "put words in your mouth".
😋
The only problem with this is that a huge percentage of the population (I believe I saw varying from 70 to 78 percent) don't vote! The Evangelicals have been stacking the deck all the while both the Democrats and the Republicans have been busy insuring you can't vote for anyone but them! I think they all should be put in the very prisons they made for us.
I do believe you're correct.
They won't do that...they're DINOs, and won't do what's right.
It's past time for Democrats in office to channel the anger Democratic voters feel and make a significant impact of legislation before we lose everything.
Thank you, it's long past the time for hand wringing and promise for a better future if only......
If only there were no money in politics. That is the central issue. As long as this will not be fixed, Democrats will have no more incentives than Republicans to think and act in the perspective of the common good. They will talk about it and then will try to change things at the margin only. You do not want to disoblige your donors, and the last thing these corporate donors themselves want is a powerful citizenry willing to curb corporations maximizing profits at any cost.
Absolutely, that is the very foundation of ALEC
Boom! Head of hammer meets nail squarely.
Perfect analysis.
Well said!
"Channel the anger" is needed as the democrat base is not tethered as it should be for such a pivotal coming election.
Chuck Schumer seems weak. He doesn't need to play dirty, but he should play hardball, and not let Mitch McConnell and Joe Manchin walk all over him. Maybe Democrats need to choose a different Senate majority leader.
I think Congress needs to rein in what has become a rogue Supreme Court, and not just roll over and accept its arbitrary and capricious rulings. Right now, we don't have democracy, we have oligarchy, rule by six unelected judges pursuing their own personal whims, inventing bogus "legal doctrines" to rationalize their outrageous behavior. Personally, I think all six of them, and Roberts is no better than the others, even if he pretends to be an institutionalist, should be impeached and removed from office for really, really bad behavior.
More realistically, Congress can enact term limits for judges and refuse to allow judges to unconstitutionally repeal Acts of Congress. Yes, Congress should codify Roe and environmental protections into law, but it needs to reform the courts as well. Otherwise, it will just be playing whack-a-mole. More terrible decisions are on tap.
Brilliant comment, Carolyn 👍
Democrats seem more interested in airing "both sides" of the issues, rather pointing out the deficits and the outright lies promulgated by the Republicans. They also need to pay attention to the bread and butter issues, as John Fetterman is doing in Pennsylvania. If Democrats message along the lines of the issues that are most important to blue collar workers, then there will be better contests. Having said all that, why do Democrats cave to people like McConnell and his ilk?????
I don't see Democrats, independents and some republicans caving to tRumpism, or 'airing both sides' the latter being the domain of the Corporate owned mediia. Not at all, especially with what is being revealed now with the 'Supreme' court and the Jan 6th investigation revelations.
The Dems have been open to forging consensus policies, and Republicans have diligently worked on those policies, and then Republicans won’t vote for them! But if they Do pass into law with only Democratic votes in Congress and the Senate, they are still full of Republican modifications and amendments [witness the conditions inserted into and allowed to remain in Obamacare—especially the predominance of insurance companies]. Dems keep TRYING to make common cause with R’s [everyone TALKS a good spiel for “bipartisanship,” but for the R’s that just means Dems have to cave to them, over an over.] Dems have been far too feckless, and R’s are seeking One Party Control. That’s the long and short of it. [I am FINALLY seeing Dems act like they have their sh** together in the Jan. 6th Committee — let’s hope].
… and for the record, too, Dems rejected R’s attempt to stymie the Jan 6th Committee with obstructionist members. Hooray for Dems finally standing up for the purpose of the hearing and heading the R’s off at the pass on this one. THAT is why the committee is able to get some work done. This morning, I watched a legislative committee hearing replay from 2019 on the contents of the Mueller Report, and Matt Gaetz did NOTHING but go off on a tangent, refusing to shut his yap when gaveled to be quiet. Obstructionist, obstructionist, obstructionist. Democrats MUST find a way to deal with the Dirty Tricks gang in its modern iteration. If Congress does not take up the issues that the SCOTUS is trashing, we are going to see the final overturning of the wonderful form of government we’ve managed to hold onto for centuries. We were warned — we should heed those warnings. If it’s not about governing, but only about power, we will lose it. {One telling point — R’s constantly try to push the idea that Dems want the government to exert “power” over ordinary people, but it is R’s who intrude on our bedrooms and our very bodies, and insist on parading their piety in our faces. Who is obsesses with “power”? Look to that to see who we have to worry about. When they show you their true colors, believe them … }
Pat Goudey O'Brien; I remember that hearing when obstructionist Matt Gaetz went on and on in spite of the gavel. I liked that Nancy Pelosi would have none of that and refused people like him being seated on the Jan 6th committee. It was a pleasure to not have my stomach in knots while people like Jim Jordan and Lindsey Graham wasted everyone's time and a chance to get the government's work done fairly!
After what Mitch McConnell did with the SCOTUS nominations — stonewalling Garland, ramming through Coney Barrett — they have some damned nerve criticizing Pelosi for rejecting big-mouth, out-of-control obstructionists on a committee charged with ferreting our TREASON.
I was so glad to see a Dem not being rolled.
Pat Goudey O'Brien ; It was a relative pleasure to watch even though very serious hearings of the most important investigation of our time, with our opponents wanting to block it.. They would stop it, if they could. If that is not tyranny what is?
You are so right about looking at the motives of the Rs screaming that the Dems want power, while they insinuate themselves into our bedrooms . In psychology it’s called “projection” - accusing others of doing what you are doing.
Bingo!
Obama care is a misnomer as it was not drawn up by Obama. He supported it, but did not develop it. A conservative 'think tank' put it together. It was a massive giveaway to the insurance industry.akso called the 'Affordable Care Act', It was neither affordable nor caring. My kids could not afford the deductibles and had to go without until they had better jobs.
Yes, bedrock fact.
I would put a ‘like’ on that, except I hate the truth of it.
But voters don’t want a history lesson or a lecture to find out what they’re voting about. Memes and catchy advertising carry the day. Dems need better messaging — not to mention getting out of the pockets of Wall Street — to get us out of this mess. I know Progressives currently throw in with Dems. Maybe Progressives need to flex more muscle, too.
But without a Parliamentary system, it’s tough for third parties to be heard. More’s the pity.
I remember seeing Obama standing to talk, flanked by two insurance reps. I knew then that the insurance industry had hijacked his plans. Medicare for all is the answer in my opinion.
I agree that Democrats often get the 'short end of the stick' when making deals or 'compromising' with The wealthier Republicans. Some Republicans have even posed as Democrats (Manchin and Synema). To give a good example of 'compromise'. They should be fined or sued.
I don’t know on what grounds they can be fined or sued, but calling them out and voting them out — we need to, if we can do it.
A problem we have is, it’s too easy to “demonize” the Left by yelling “socialism” these days — used to be Pinko.
The arguments on the Left need better framing and presentation. People are more afraid of the word “socialist” than they are “oligarch.” I’m at a loss to understand why …
@Pat. It is a generational thing. Our grandparents' generation embraced unionism and the Marshall Plan for Europe. Then we came along in the Soviet era and were taught every day in school that Communism is socialism (not true at all) and taught that socialism is authoritarianism (not true at all). But it is hard to leave the lessons of our childhood behind...
For sure, our cultural indoctrination, and now the opposition , had stronger messaging. My brother said it’s easier to sell a simple lie than a complex truth, and that is a simple truth! Dems and the entire Left need to be better at messaging, but I worry that it’s tough to talk to people who want a slogan or a meme, and that’s as far as they’ll listen.
Exactly. I believed for almost 20 years that Communism in China was straight out of my George Orwell's book "1984"! Then some 40+ years later I got to go to Shanghai and frankly most Chinese have a better understanding of our history than we do. They also have a tremendous amount of freedom.
Trying to "like" that, can't for some reason. So, "I like that comment."
Maybe many people don't know what an oligarch is. Imo "fascist dictator" would be a good comparison.
One of Dems' many problems for YEARS has been the inability to frame the narrative. Basically they've been all REactive instead of even a teensy bit PROactive.
Soooooooo true.
My thinking is that progressives should welcome the word socialism. Talk about what it is and what it is not. Talk about the word oligarchy and what that means;; talk about fascism and what that word means. Actually define these words and debunk the boogey man. The biggest problem in our country is education. Most general education does not cover these concepts. I think if all Democratic, progressive candidates began to use those words and define them, the boogey man could leave.
@Maggie. I wish that would happen!
Completely agree, that is how it is done…
Sorry but if you state truth or facts to a Trumpanzy they immediately start spewing shit! That's why (if you were so inclined) if you wanted to help a Trumpanzy who's head was on fire all you would have to do is put a fan in front of his face and then tell him his head was on fire! The shit spewed out of his mouth would put the fire out and I guarantee he would deny it ever happened!
Education is most likely why.
Or, the lack thereof.
Yes. [Another quarter of our culture under attack — oy, vey iz mir.]
Not to be a Debbie Downer, but don't relax too much. First, of all, Biden and Schumer reinstated a "blue slip" tradition that allows senators to put a hold on judicial nominees for their states, after McConnell had abolished it. Seems like they were setting themselves up for blackmail. Well, Biden just made a deal with McConnell that he would appoint a virulent anti-abortion, pro corruption judge in Kentucky if McConnell promises to stop blocking his nominees for United States attorney there. Kentucky Democrats are outraged. This was reported in Slate:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/07/biden-mcconnell-chad-meredith-abortion-kentucky-judge.html
And they wonder why everyday people get fed up with the system...
Thanks for posting!
OH, I saw that. I happen to be a very out-spoken person {was a local journalist — community newspapers in Massachusetts and Vermont} — and I’m not shy about writing my opinions to the White House. If you don’t like what Biden’s doing {and I DON’T}, tell him!!!
<https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/>
Yuk.
@Pat. Thank you for this perspective. Thank goodness for Liz Cheney too!
Most assuredly so. I can disagree with someone and still see integrity. The obstructionist Zero Sum people have none. Good thoughts to you.
You might be right, but it is DRIVING ME NUTS!!!!! I do see equivocation from the media, including the Washington Post, including Opinions from Anti-choice writers.
Anti-choice writers have a right to be heard. I hope rational discussion can prevail, because without resorting to religious argument, the anti-choice side has very little validity regarding when to begin to consider delivering instead of aborting.
In the early 80's old white Dems realized that being the party of inclusion (more women, more minorities) meant a smaller share of the public trough pie for themselves. That's the Dem Party according to me.
In '09 I heard Obama say that we don't begrudge CEO's their 8 figure salaries and bonuses. I wanted to call and say "Who's 'We,' White Man?" but I wasn't sure he'd think it was funny.
I don't think pro-choice demonstrations will help. But women uniting to go on a purchasing boycott will: women make most of the day-to-day purchasing decisions in this country. Let's see what the alt-right Supremes think about my bodily autonomy when I have a nice little nest-egg to finance my (or a friend's, or a stranger's) trip to Canada for "tourism" if necessary. Buy only food and medicine and actual necessities. Wear the clothes in your closet. Use the library. Stock up on contraception.
Stop having sex. Read Lysistrata.
Yes! Aristophanes for the win!
Thanks for identifying the author; I couldn't remember.
Did you see Spike Lee's movie, Chi-raq? The women of Chicago go on a sex strike to stop a gang war. It's even in verse like the Lysistrata. Spike Lee is an American treasure! I highly recommend the film.
Thanks for this information. I didn't know about that film; will try to find it. If I were a college professor I'd play it in class.
@Sandra. Ha ha ha ha ha! I long ago stopped thinking of women as a coherent voting block. No, they are just as diverse and just as radical as their men in the same communities.
I don't understand the nature of your remark, in relation to Lysistrata. Are you saying that not all women would agree to withdraw for sex? If only half of them decided not to participate in the sex strike, there would still be millions remaining who would.
@Sandra B. I'm saying that half of the people you target ARE women. Women on the right hold the same or worse opinions than their men do. If you are trying to change the behavior of people on the right, having Democratic women withhold sex from Democratic men won't have that effect and right wing women who have the same opinions as their men won't go along.
Please, just google Lysistrata, by Aristophanes. You're blinded by your partisanship. I, too am a free-thinking liberal, and I allow that every sexual relationship has its own reality, regardless of politics.
@Sandra B. I read that in the 8th grade. In terms of blinded, you realize that the play is widely considered a (typical of ancient Greece) misogynistic farce, though your favorite author is not kind to the men in the play either!
Excellent advice!!!!!
It takes two. Let’s go for vasectomies.
I'm all for a vasectomy or tubal ligation for every one of Trump's SJC appointees.
@William. That's what they did to Gaddafi when he was tied to that tank out in the dessert. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy....
Gaddafi was brutally murdered. Murder is nothing to chuckle over.
AMEN TO THAT! Great idea!
Stop having sex. Read Lysistrata.
They'll just hire hookers, or rape someone.
Yes, but there are millions—millions—of women who love being married and say "yes" to sex any time their partners give the signal. What would happen if all THOSE millions suddenly said "no" with one voice? Never dismiss the good expecting the perfect. Read Lysistrata, by Aristophanes.
Sandra B ; millions—millions—of women who love being married and say "yes" to sex any time their partners give the signal. What could go wrong if that perfection is tampered with? Also, what if some of that resulted unwanted pregnancies? why assume that dismissing the perfect could be any good!? (And how would they all be suddenly saying 'no' with one voice?)
Those who want to do it would organize, like any bunch of union workers.
My remark was intended to be facetious, not really serious. Whether a woman "loves being married" or has a husband she responds to when he "gives the signal" is irrelevant. denying sex to men as punishment for anything our 'Supreme' court has foisted on us is not a real solution and would not apply to many girls and women who have been raped or who have an unwanted pregnancy for whatever reason.
In an ideal world, women would have lives that allow them to bond with each child, nurse it until it weaned itself, get community/village support for the care of her family, and we would end child apartheid by closing the schools and building villages.
Chuck Schumer is not doing his job. He just "phones it in". He has tools and resources for managing his majority in the Senate, but he does not use them. Robert Caro's book "Master of the Senate" describes Lyndon Johnson as the Senate majority leader. That is the kind of person we need now.
A 50-50 Senate with two of the 50 in the Dem aisle very wobbly is not a “majority” that can be “managed.” The only reason Dems have a “majority” is that the Vice President has tie-breaking power. This is a not a position of power, It is a cliff that can be clung to, barely. Get real. We need to vote Dem in November to unlock the gridlock, if people will do it and see what comes of it — If we have a Democrat in the White House and we saddle him or her with the kind of obstructionist Republicans in Washington today, we will not get the balance that bipartisanship used to promise. We will get more of the sort of thing Mitch McConnell does, which is literally “anything he can get away with.”
I agree totally! I think it’s intellectual laziness that some Democrats are guilty of! Now the Supreme Court has practically gutted the EPA’S ability to monitor and regulate toxic emissions! This ruling was based on a law suit from West Virginia! Let’s face it,Joe Manchin got what he wanted!
Heartbreaking … especially if you live in a part of the world that has no more time to address the heat and the changes. 😖
Or what he was paid to deliver.
Paid, if not outright, certainly through getting him elected and padding his campaign coffers …
Manchin is bent.
I think "bent" just became another four-letter swear word ...
Respectfully, I suggest you read "Master of the Senate".
I was around when Johnson was doing his thing. He’s no secret, and he was as much of an arm-twister as McConnell. As a matter of fact, they both have a lot of the same skills.
YES, we need a lot more savvy and skill in the fray Left of the aisle, during times of majority and minority {McConnell is wielding the power of his “minority” just fine, thank you very much.}
But I’m not sure, before maybe the transition during the Reagan administration, that there’s ever been as clear a set of Marching Orders for Senators or Reps of one party or the other as there are today. Especially in the Republican Party. So, Master Shmaster. I’m not buying that a Democrat could do today what Johnson did then [and I’m not sure I’d advocate for all of Johnson’s shenanigans, either — but what’s happening today is scary, so … maybe … Aaagh. Must one surrender all integrity?]
The vote got us the presidency and two republicans calling themselves democrats in the Senate, but it's still (only) nominally a democratic majority. More voters means more democrats. Right now, we're paralyzed, but we aren't directly under a would-be dictator exercising control over a gang of thugs who want to destroy the government. We need more democrats voting and we'll get control of the government in such a way that things will begin to happen that we like.
One hopes…and one puts energy and effort into making it happen.
“Where has that gotten us”? Well, it’s been a pattern that people think if they maintain a mix of Dems and Rs, we’ll get some sort of balance. Used to have some validity. Not since R’s have been on the road to Zero Sum politics {“We do not win unless our opponents lose.” The point of that attitude is “There is no win-win.” Bipartisanship is about win-win. Even the constant Republican drumbeat about getting Dems to be bipartisan is an excuse for them to get in there and obstruct — see Obamacare. See the way they behave in Congressional hearings…. }
When I say we need to vote Dems in, I mean a blue wave, not a few here and there.
AND for sure, locally, statewide, the American people need to pay attention to current attempts to invalidate the ballot box and throw everything into legislatures to decide elections. That is the antithesis of what the country was founded to do. The individual vote was supposed to matter. Look it up.
So, looking at “where it has goten us,” I say not far enough. Do it more
That is definitely not true, Mr. RJ. What is needed is a Dem supermajority to get shyte done.
You are 100% correctamundo, however, in saying that Dems have a big problem with messaging. The R's have perfected emotional gut punch messaging that sticks in your head and connects with some issue about which the MAGA's either loathe or love--in any event the messaging usually boils up some rightwing voter energy.
And then there are the Dems, futzing around explaining--in an intellectual sort of way--how their bill will do X and Y without the toxic side effect of the R bill...yada, yada, blahblahblah. No energy; no passion. R's and Indies tune it out. We need punchy, short TRUTHFUL messaging and I have no idea why it seems to be beyond the DNC.
Speaking of the DNC--they are a coterie of complacent idiots. I say kick them out and get a new batch in. The DNC has grown altogether too comfy with the status quo.
Whoa…so well said. YESSSSS.
It isn't working for the dems because the once and future Trumpers block every attempt they make. Pay attention. What we need right now is to have a huge majority of democrats in both houses, so they can count on the vote when they take legislation to the floor. Currently, because Joe Biden is president, the republicans are on strike. We only have half a government that wants to accomplish anything. Consensus is in suspension. We need critical mass.
100%
!!!!!!!
I’m not a Dem, either. I’m far more progressive. I live in Vermont. The Dem machine drives me nuts, and the centrist alliance with Wall Street even nuts-er. BUT, moving our country in the direction of responsiveness to all aspects of our society is better than letting us go over to the kind of people we’re seeing on the SCOTUS right now.
YES, Dems need to get their messaging act together, and figure out who represents their position best ..
RJ. Are you a troll????????????????
Now is the time for all good {wo}men to come to the aid of their country. https://www.fieldteam6.org/
I worry that ennui will prevail, and discouraged people will leave the field and it will only get worse. I do NOT want “more of the same” either. Entrenched Democrats who are happy to work close to power but not willing to fight for change drive me up a wall.
But if we don’t keep pushing the stone UP the hill, it will roll back over us, so … what’s our alternative….?
Not many democrats are doing their job. Least of all Joe Biden, who simply does not want to rock the boat. We need a Supreme Court that can be respected. Those who lied at their hearings should face perjury charges. The filibuster has to go.
Those 2 things would be a good start, Rowland; Biden needs to be on board.
It is a hard lesson for liberals and Democrats: Elections have consequences; the coalition failure in the 2016 election leading to Trump's three SCOTUS picks will haunt us for decades. Multiple analyses documented that third party voters and those who declared themselves “too liberal” to vote for Hillary Clinton so did not vote at all made the difference in the swing states that went to Trump in 2016. One such person told me she voted Green to “to make a statement.” I responded that her statement was that she preferred Trump to Clinton so we got Trump and his three SCOTUS picks. Liberals should have learned that lesson in Florida in 2000 but declined. Think what a different world this would be if Gore won in 2000 and Clinton in 2016. Progressive policies depend on coalitions.
You are absolutely correct. And it’s even more frightening in this year’s mid-terms. Any democrat who doesn’t vote is asking to be governed by a right wing conservative, at best, or a fascist, seditionist unhinged from reality, at worst. It’s not “making a statement” that is constructive in any way.
Unfortunately since no one will ever send in the military and put all these parasites in prison it comes to this. More Democrats who will also start lining their pockets just like the Repubs, who agree 100% to wage war after war to line their buddies pockets or scum that want to completely wipe out democracy and start Armageddon! What a choice. I would prefer to wake up the 70% and have them vote independent but that won't happen either so here I am having to agree with you so we can limp along staving off the inevitable rise of fascists nut jobs.
RJ, please refrain from calling someone else on this page "childish" because of their views.
What about "jerkoff rightwing idiot?"
Examine how our government works.
Don't forget. Trump's victory in the Electoral College was due to HRC's hubris. She's responsible for her own loss to trump for basically ignoring Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. When you combine that with the DNC's sabotage of Bernie in the primaries, it was a recipe for the disaster we are now suffering in the SCOTUS. Let's hope she stays home in 2024.
Idk whether it was her personal hubris or "campaign hubris" in general. I don't think you can let Obama off scot-free either -- didn't he say (later) he didn't push the Russian interference angle because he didn't think there was anything to worry about? Or Comey. Or MSM. Sins of omission, sins of commission. Plenty to go around.
Perhaps. However had she, or her campaign, not assumed those three states were a lock and she paid attention to them Obama, Comey and the russians would have been insignificant.
Agree. Imo it's the job of the campaign managers to read the tea leaves. The candidate is busy running and doesn't have time to take soundings on public opinion.
Trump's choices can be diluted by expanding the SC, which was last done in 1869 when there were 9 federal districts. Imo politicos should make the case that the court should have the same number of Justices as there are fed. districts. People can disagree but it's hard to prove pure political motivation.
Democrat bashing at it's most ferocious
1.4 million people voted for the Green Party candidate in 2016, a large percentage of them in "blue" states that Clinton won anyway; on the other hand, 4.4 million people, including people who would otherwise have voted for a relatively sane Republican candidate, voted for the Libertarian Party candidate.
Without Manchin and Cinema's votes democrats can't even get to 50 to do ANYTHING. All this talk about what the Senate SHOULD do isn't taking into account what the Senate CAN'T do. Anybody who thinks the Dems are in charge of the Senate has their head wedged. This apparent denial of the full truth here assures that we'll never even approach a real solution because we aren't even recognizing the true extent of the problem. We're screwed.
We're screwed is your contribution!? How about the fact that even Republicans are being affected by the findings of the Jan 6 committee? If Sens Collins and Murkowski are feeling bad about being 'misled' by nominees in their hearings statements about RoevWade ; maybe they would support carve outs in the filibuster to make changes to protect 'settled law' regarding women's rights to medical care and every citizen's rights to vote and have their votes count! One does not have to be very radical to support things like that. Just saying !
The Dems, and the president in particular, are afraid to call out the GOP for what it has become - a fascist party that cares only about power and doing whatever it takes to grab it. Name one act that benefits the working class Americans that is supported by the GOP. There are none. Biden has to point out that the GOP will not support any piece of legislation put forward by the Dems because they are afraid that the Dems legislation will help people and make Biden more popular, and the GOP is willing to vote AS A BLOC against it in spite of how this harms the electorate simply in the hope that, by preventing Biden from succeeding, they will regain power. This message has to be broadcase loud and clear, starting with Biden. Biden has to call McConnell and McCarthy what they are: authoritarians at best and in all likelihood neo-fascists. They do not hesitate to call the Dems socialists. Why will the Dems not call them exactly what they truly have become?
Yes yes yes. And talk about what fascism is where it got started and how it functions. Until he does that. They will continue to shout down and obstruct.
Thank you for sharing your cathartic conversation! You acknowledged the darkness of the time and yet managed to show us the light and the way out!
It might be very interesting -- and a sign of hope -- to track new voter registrations among the 18 to 25 year olds over the next month or so. I agree that our future rests with our young people. I hope the Inequality Media team can track this key metric.
And they aren’t creative thinkers.
You have no idea, Dr. Reich .... and Heather .... how you lift me up and keep me from falling into despair. Thank you from the bottom of my soul for your contributions in these outrageously unbalanced and troubled times.
My answer to the poll is really "a little bit of all these things" with I side of "I have no idea!"