The stark, core difference between the right and the left's visions for America
I think this issue is the key to the differences between right and left and should be the heart of our messages.
The left's vision is one in which each person is valued and policies are designed to be good for people - how to address needs from housing and food to education and more. This means ensuring a moderate level of inequality, rather than a high one, so that everyone benefits from the prosperity society creates rather than only a few such as happened in old European monarchies.
This tries to keep society's resources, from scientific research to media, pursuing the public good quite a bit. It results in advances and broad prosperity and a strong democracy.
In contrast, the right's vision for America is plutocracy, period. Any other issue is try to get votes so they can get power to pursue plutocracy.
The people in charge of the right - the very wealthy - have one question: what gets them the most?
And in fact, the 'public good' is at odds with their political interests. A public that's well off is better able to organize and oppose their agenda.
They'd rather own a bigger slice of a smaller pie than a smaller slice of a bigger pie.
Their vision, by taking more and more and more, leads to less productivity and prosperity, less freedom and more suffering, more loss of life and less education - to most being peasants.
Their way lies the destruction of the middle class - which is what we've been seeing - the middle class that the FDR era largely created.
Over time, the economy is not a zero-sum game; but in any moment, it is. They'll pursue short-sighted policies to get more in that zero sum game.
Some wealthy people aren't like that. They'll have concerns for society, they'll be willing to take less for the public good. Talking about 'the right' isn't talking about them.
Louis Brandeis said we can't have both democracy and great concentration of wealth. To have plutocracy, it's at odds with real democracy. To keep power, the softer war on democracy requires the right to use the power of the media they can control to persuade the public to support them, using propaganda - which is what we see with 90% of talk-radio being right-wing, with their propaganda factory 'think tanks' creating the sales pitches for their policies.
A next escalation in the war on democracy is to skew votes - which is what is done with the widespread Gerrymandering, with voter suppression, with the end of much of the Voting Rights Act.
And these things are winning elections. The House, which is supposed to be the branch closest to 'the People', had a large Republican majority in 2012 despite getting more Democratic votes.
And Republicans are pushing MORE measures to further skew elections. For example, they want to change statewide presidential elections to assign votes by their Gerrymandered districts.
Had they adopted this system, with the voting the same, Romney would have won the election.
The right's vision for America is poverty for most of the people while a few take everything - and a war on democracy crippling it if not eventually ending it.
The left's vision is pretty much all the 'public good stuff', about the 'good of the people' - a strong middle class and sharing in the nation's wealth.
Resources going to public health, public education, to less inequality.
I think every other issue is secondary to this difference in their core visions for the country.
And fighting this fight moves the goalposts. In the 1950's, there were the same plutocratic desires, but Republicans were unpopular enough they couldn't run on a plutocratic agenda. Instead, to win elections, the Republican Party ran on a platform bragging about its strong support unions and expanding Social Security. Anything further to the right was fringe and marginalized, until Reagan.
The goalposts have moved the wrong direction since then - how loud is the Democratic Party in demanding a repeal of the lower tax rates on the rich since Reagan?
Progressives need to make the elections about this difference in visions for the country. Republicans will always try to make the elections about less important issues they do well on.
For example, as the top 1% take an ever-higher percent of all the wealth, they'll have their servant politicians campaign demonizing a poor person who just doesn't want to work demanding money.
And someone who is working for low income is all too likely to agree with that message and vote Republican, to vote against that poor guy trying to 'take their money'.
It's perverse, when it's really the right taking their money; wages would be perhaps a third to a half higher if pre-Reagan policies were in effect.
The right has been mastering the messaging of 'if you don't like the rich taking everything, vote against those elitist Democrats'.
Like any good propaganda, there's a nugget of truth in it, despite that Republicans are far worse on the issue. Progressives need to make it clear about each side's vision.
That means both helping the public understand the issue, and fighting within the Democratic Party to make it represent the people itself, so we don't get two plutocratic parties.
It was Thomas Frank who summarized that issue by saying the Republicans have become the party of the 1% and the Democrats the party of the 10% below the 1%. That's why we need the progressives.
Comments
Vision for America?
How is any of that relevant for discussion if none of it can be implemented? We aren't "fighting" against the "right". That's merely shadow boxing. The actual fight is against the megalomaniacs willing to do anything to advance their global hegemony. And we are losing. Spectacularly.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
@Anja Geitz I think that is the right
I think that is the right - and we're losing for a variety of reasons, but the bottom line is not having the people unite against them over the plutocracy issues.
And as you know, that's by design - make other issues important to voters, divide and conquer, pander for votes.
Oh, you're Christian? Let's not talk about Christian values of caring for people - let's tell you the Democrats are at war with you and get you to vote with 'identity politics'!
Are you saying that the
Meglomaniacs in the pentagon, and the ones running the oil companies, Pharma, Wall Street, who are buying up our politicians and our media are not progressive?
Oh my! That is a problem!
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Unfortunately, the Democrats Have Been Captured By Big Money
as well.
The lines of political demarcation in the 21st century are NOT Right vs Left, they're BIG vs little, and BOTH political parties serve the BIGs.
I don't believe that getting a message out about plutocracy is going to do anything.
We've got to say, and DO, something that draws into clear focus the 2 tracks of liberty and justice: for the BIGs and for the littles.
The littles go to jail. The BIGs go to a bigger boardroom.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
The Powerful vs The Powerless
And now that TPTB confiscated the electoral process through the Department of Homeland Security, it's all just a political entertainment show to keep us distracted while they plunder the world's resources. Good thing they have those compounds in New Zealand to escape to when things get messy. I hear that when millions of people who have no food or water they can get mighty angry.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Required Reading on This Topic:
This piece in the Atlantic should be required reading for all Americans:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/how-democrats-kille...
There is no Left in American electoral politics. We have the American Property Party and the American People's Property Party (think People's Front of Judea) -- two property parties representing 300,000,000 Americans.
After reading that article, if you think Democrats are socialists, "the Left", or Progressive in their politics, there's something wrong.
Democrats decided long ago to leverage the market for political change, and about 25 years ago they decided to feed their people to that market to keep the gravy train rolling.
There is no People's party in America.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
@k9disc But the way to get
But the way to get one is to take over the Democratic Party.
A Way to Get One. A... Way...
Remember the Whigs?
You speak as if what you say is truth to which there is no alternative. That absolutism is not truth. It may be for you, personally, as it is obviously your strong belief, but it is not the only alternative.
There are many alternatives, and I happen to think that electoral avenues will be a trailing end indicator, as they have been for the last 20 years. That's because we "have to take over" a property party and turn it over to the people.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
@k9disc Tomorrow, Bernie
Tomorrow, Bernie could start a third party which would have a majority of Americans support it, and defeat both of the major parties.
I don't think the odds of that happening are one hundredth of one percent, though.
In my opinion, the only practical way to have a people's party is to fight to take over the Democratic Party. A third party attempt would very likely lead to splitting the vote Republican wins.
That sounds like Kos only nicer n/t
Required reading, indeed
Thanks for this link. I've bookmarked it for reading in the future. There is so much good information in this. The part about how the New Democrats removed the person who had been keeping companies in line was especially interesting.
I call them baby Clintons. Nah. They are Clinton's parents.
@k9disc As a practical matter,
As a practical matter, the ONLY way for 'small' to win is to take over the Democratic Party.
Calling the two main parties equally corrupt or the same is both wrong and a guaranteed defeat.
The Democratic Party is partly corrupted; the Republican Party is pretty much entirely corrupted.
I don't think it's practical to win from a third party view that tries to defeat Republicans and Democrats. If it were - great. Instead - it needs fighting within the Democratic Party to take it.
That's why Independent Bernie Sanders ran for the Democratic nomination - not as a third party like John Anderson or Ralph Nader.
If you were right that a message about plutocracy won't do anything - then go home, bend over, and enjoy the permanent plutocracy. I'd suggest fighting for better instead.
The Money Shot
.
Let us define "partly" and "corrupted" shall we? You go first...
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
@Anja Geitz Sure. The Democratic
Sure. The Democratic Party has a Progressive Caucus - its largest - or about 75 members in the House who are pretty uncorrupted. It has Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Ron Wyden, Sherrod Brown and others who might not be perfect here and there, but are overall not corrupted. Republicans seem to have approximately zero in the House and Senate who are not highly corrupted. It's who they are. Their best case is a Susan Collins, who seemed to be the sole healthcare vote for principle in their party; but doing the right thing is an exception, she usually votes wrong also.
I could list a hundred important issues on which the Democratic position (for example, look at the united front against healthcare repeal) is the right one and the Republicans have the wrong one.
Of course, the 'partly' part is that there is a lot of corruption in the Democratic Party as well.
Their most powerful faction is the usually-not-as-bad-as-Republicans faction that does the wrong thing for the wrong reasons much too often. We need to defeat that faction in a party civil war.
I haven't quite made up my mind
If you really believe legislators like Kamala Harris are "incorruptible", or you are looking to persuade the readers here to believe that. If it's the second, good luck with that as there have already been numerous essays on Harris and her record here in California along with her political aspirations. Which is essentially progressive in name only.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Sherrod Brown and Warren
destroyed any credibility they might have had in my book. You realize they voted for the bloated defense budget and the extra 80 billion. If that's progressive, I'm a flying horse.
I don't believe Bernie will start a third party, and I don't believe the Democratic Party can have its cold dead hands pried off all that Wall Street cash. I think everything has to crash and burn before anything can raise out of the ashes.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Oh come on
If Warren was the progressive that everyone thinks she is, she would have endorsed Bernie during the primaries, and she wouldn't have said anything about Hillary at all.
Hillary is against everything that Warren claims she is for.
I knew that she was a phony 'progressive' when she voted to send Israel more bombs after they had run out of them after bombing Gaza for 54 days.
Real progressives would have been calling for Israel to stop and then call for a war crimes investigation.
Did one democrat say anything about what Israel was doing? Not that I recall.
@Craig234
What must be considered is that under the policies of neither Dems nor Repubs do the American people have any real influence over that policy, apart from the Dems tossing the odd social bone, where the profits of Those Who Matter can continue to increase at citizen/environmental expense.
Who really runs 'the people's representatives' in the US public service?
(Emphasis mine)
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
The problem is much bigger than the front-puppet-parties, but it's been made painfully evident that both parties drain and manipulate the public in order to siphon from the public both wealth and power to private self-interests which will, in turn, further enrich their political lackeys - although corporate self-interests/billionaires have been filling public positions especially since the polluting-industry-interest-staffed Bush 2 Admin., thereby cutting out 'the middle-man' as they take over direct government themselves.
This is not going to end well for anybody...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
And the "practical" way to combat the levers of power
...who effectively will disenfranchise any constituent who poses a threat to their empire would be?
Through a compromised primary system? Through a compromised legal system? Through a compromised media infrastructure where "truth" is what ever the establishment says it is?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
"Message"
Messaging is not fighting.
We hear this kind of thing a lot from the establishment Dems: "We need to find the right message. We're re-working the message. We've hired consultants to come up with a good message."
"Message" in this context = PR. Spin. Trying to manipulate people so they'll vote the way you want.
Talking about something is not the same thing as doing something about it.
The American people don't want messages. They want tangible action to make their lives better.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
@Centaurea That is nonsensical.
That is nonsensical. It's taking one definition of messaging and applying it where it doesn't fit.
What you are saying here is not to have any communication. No issues, no discussion, no advocacy - those are all messages.
Simply put your head in the sand and watch the elections go well.
It's not pleasant to talk with people who misrepresent what you say.
Centaurea and messaging
Centaurea said:
to which you answered:
With regards to Democratic Party "messaging", Centaurea's right on the money. For decades, all we've gotten is "messaging" the way Centaurea correctly described it: all to get the voters to vote "blue no matter who" while all the action was reserved for the zillionaire donor class and Israel.
We need the ACTIONS and the POLICIES to serve us, the 99%. Not just lip-service "messaging". And thus far I fail to see how we can make the Democratic Party do just that.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
@thanatokephaloides The messaging I'm
The messaging I'm talking about is not what the Democratic Party has been doing. It's closer to what Bernie is doing.
All Americans Deserve Healthcare... Now Go Shop for Insurance
that is "affordable" on private exchanges.
Medicare for all is free pony shit.
That's the understanding that messaging with shitty policy engenders.
There must be a meeting of the rhetoric, values and policy for the message to resonate and be taken up into the national discourse.
Actions ARE needed. Democrats need to fall on some strong social and economic policy swords -- OVER and over again -- to regain some kind of trust from the voters.
They have got to do something to hang their messaging on. Ain't gonna be easy for them.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
"messaging" vs. ACTIONS
No, it's not going to be easy for the Democrats. Mere "messaging" "advocacy", the weak beer offered us by the DLC/Turd Way/Clintons and their ilk, won't cut it any more. And acting in the interests of us 99%ers means directly and publicly acting against the interests of the multimillionaire classes, the mega-donors that today's Democrats are so willing to serve.
It needs to be possible to cast a meaningful vote for federal offices against Goldman Sachs. It currently isn't.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
What progressives are you talking about?
Far as I know, the partisan democrats on Daily Kos call themselves progressives. They aren't going to save shit.
And when you say "we're losing", do you mean the democrats are losing?
I'm confused with your use of left/right, republican/democrat. It seems like your equating left with democrats and right with republicans.
The way you paint the left is wholly inaccurate if you're talking about the democratic party as would be how you paint the right if you're talking about all people who lean right, not the republican party.
As far as plutocracy, the Wall Street Party, i.e., Democratic party, is just as amenable to plutocracy as the republican party.
Hey!
I just got an email from the DailyKos saying I should give them $5 because they are fighting for progressive causes. You aren't saying Markos is lying to me to get money, are you?
/s
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Yep.
Yes.
[video:https://youtu.be/87xx5pzHDlY]
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I once bought a Led Zeppelin album
Took it home, popped it on my turntable and heard Yes instead. Apparently they had put the wrong LP in Led Zeppelin's Physical Graffiti jacket.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Not Bad
Hopefully, some other buyer received your Led Zeppelin album in their Yes. And then both of you would have expanded your respective musical universes. (Unless you already had the other LP.) Two good bands - IMHO.
Strange that a harp of thousand strings should keep in tune so long
I was 15 years old
And in the mood to hear Led Zeppelin. I took the album back to Tower Records and got my dose of Led Zep. I suspect the person who got Led Zeppelin in their Yes album was equally surprised but maybe a little more flexible than I was.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
@Anja Geitz Sounds like
Sounds like there was a communications breakdown, leaving you dazed and confused - a real heartbreaker. Instead of Zep, you were the owner of a lonely heart.
@Big Al There is a correlation
There is a correlation between Democrats and progressives. Meaning, progressive are far more aligned with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party; but not all progressives are Democrats, and definitely not all Democrats are progressives. They're neither the same nor entirely different - I view the Democratic Party as having a large progressive wing, that includes probably most progressives. I think that the only practical way to power for progressives is to take over the Democratic Party, and understand some progressives disagree with that.
Eighty percent of democrats approve of war criminal
Obama's eight years in office. That's not very progressive to me and indicates a small percentage that really get it.
The democratic party is controlled by the oligarchy, both parties are and always have been. There is some disagreement on this blog regarding whether the democratic party can be "reformed" by electing more and better democratic politicians, but most feel that's a lost cause and in fact plays into the hands of the oligarchy by continuing to channel citizen activity into a failed and corrupt political system.
It's not a lost cause.
It's a long shot. But it isn't as long a shot as forming a successful 3rd party. If ever there was an opportunity to see 3rd party gains, 2016 was it. They didn't. How much effort would you care to put into a 3rd party in 2020 to see whether the Greens can break the 5% barrier.
Not just partisans at DKos - 'progressive' is the DLC term
for 'liberal'--coined by DLC co-founder Al From, because he wanted to separate his cabal of corporatist neoliberal lawmakers (DLCers) from folks who are/were truly on the left.
Posted the video of Al From saying explaining his thinking, a couple times, already. (From a Washington Journal segment on C-Span).
That's 'why' any time I hear a lawmaker use this word, I'm highly suspicious--they know the origin of this term, even if the
sheeplerank-and-file Democrats, don't.(BTW, I sometimes use the word, for lack of a better term.)
Mollie
"I think dogs are the most amazing creatures--they give unconditional love. For me, they are the role model for being alive."--Gilda Radner
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
divide and conquer
From my view it isn't left and right. I live in the red buckle of the Bible belt, and the argument that works with my neighbors is an anti-corporate oligarchy message...in the way Reagan used an anti-government meme. Even the Trumpateers are aware they are in a rigged game...they just have not figured out who is to blame.
Start calling them the alt-right or RW nut jobs or whatever is counter productive. Educate, educate, educate, It is the capitalist system run amok, not right and left.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
@Lookout That sounds great. What's
That sounds great. What's needed is an informing and organizing of those voters around the right issues, rather than the phony issues the plutocrats want to push.
I Agree. The Bogeyman is Not Defined Properly.
Big Corporate and the Oligarchs get a complete pass in our national political discourse, and I have the same experience with my friends and family who are various degrees of moderate conservative to redneck.
The only message that resonates is anti-corporate, but again when it comes time to point the finger, they can't aim it at the suits.
Conflating the suits and both captured and sponsored political parties is THE winner -- it's the message that will allow my friends and family to point at the real bogeyman, the "Business of Government" which is the current Democratic Brand.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Do you mean the Communists and the Fascists?
There are no Communists, just Fascists in the US. One party is a full-throated Fascist party and the other is a full-throated Fascist party with make-believe "liberal" social policies. The standard bearers for the second Fascist party, the Clinton Crime Family, were strong supporters of DOMA and it's really hard to find anything that they did for minorities. Oh I forgot they passed legislation that made it possible for Black Men to spend decades in prison. Name one bill that Hillar-ious authored in the Senate which moved the causes of minorities? Can't come up with one, eh? No, they are fakes, Fascists with a self-painted limousine liberal veneer.
The real issue is who really gives a damn about the people? Bernie only moderately moved in that direction and was considered too radical for America.
The oligarchs own America. They select the candidates, pay to have them marketed and you go to the polls thinking that you actually get to have a choice. You don't. almost had a choice with Bernie, but fortunately sanity prevailed and the Oligarchs won. Strangely enough their candidate didn't win. Instead a corrupt business man/oligarch, posing as a populist, beat the pantsuit off of Hillar-ious. Maybe even our remnant of a democracy is too much of a risk for the oligarchs and I expect them to fix it so that a real oligarch-opposing populist never gets into the White House. As I look at candidates I see the same things. Driven by personal ambition to become the next President. They are mostly the same, empty of principle and in search of oligarchs to kiss-ass to and make them kings. In return they will make economic life for their oligarchs as rewarding as possible. A great ROI to pick the right candidate. There will be no improvement until we get separation of wealth and state, and that will not happen as long as they have power.
Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.
The Core Similarity Is The Problem
The Democratic and Republican parties are joined at the hip on massive military spending and mass incarceration. No difference!
Bernie's recent foreign policy speech was too little, too late. Bernie also stopped short of saying No More Wars of Aggression!
The corporate Zombie Democrats show no sign of turning back their "tough on crime" competition with the Republicans that Bill Clinton amped up.
The core similarities between "New Dems" and Republicans were clearly demonstrated when Schumer and Pelosi tried to negotiate with Trump. Contrast that with the cold shoulder reception Bernie's centrist Medicare For All plan has received from Dem leadership.
The Democrats would rather negotiate with Trump and Mitch Mc Connell than with Bernie and Liz Warren. The core similarities outweigh the core differences.
[edit to clarify last sentence]
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
It is one more schism....
I think the United States is too big to govern and needs to be broken up into at least four separate countries. To skewer the trend when the numbers are this big requires cheating or a catastrophe, both of which duopoly has mastered.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I have been saying this very same thing for decades now....
I think the number I came up with was 5 - 7 (based on regional/cultural segments of the country moreso than linear geography.)
I am hoping for a "soft" Soviet style collapse when it comes rather than a full blown civil war, with the "states" that are formed operating in a manner similar to the EU, but honestly I do think we are headed squarely in the direction of fragmentation.
The needs, wants and desires of the people in the different regions of this country are profoundly different, and trying to mash them all under one giant, under-represented tent is not working.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Ds in California are a bunch of cheaters and liars
Thank you for writing this essay and having a conversation about it. I am always ranting about California Ds so this is nothing new from me, I am opposed to supporting them. They aren't progressive in their actions, they are neoliberal in my view.
A bunch of Berniecrats came to take over the state party, yay! So the corporate neoliberals cheated them out of the win they worked so hard for, same as it ever was! Newbies will be assimilated, there will be no progress until somebody gets lobbied by big money. "That's the system." "We're capitalists."
It's all perfectly legal now thanks to Citizen's United, thanks to Hillary Clinton saying Fahrenheit 911 wasn't political, wtf? Thanks Michael Moore. They are the ones that brought it, they should be the ones to carry legal bribery in U.S. politics to their graves. Greedy bastards.
The Democrats are dead to me, Bernie is full of old ideas about how to get things done. Why pretend democracy trumps oligarchy when the votes aren't even counted correctly any more, if at all? I can't do it anymore.
And another thing! The F35 doesn't even fly right, it's a boondoggle of the worst kind. Those Vermont jobs are not worth killing civilians all over the world, are you kidding me? NO. Let's see some anti-war action for a change, not some permitted pussy cap march in downtown Berkeley. Get real!
If California Democrats are progressive, then so is the homelessness and poverty on their watch. No thank you, but I do think we should keep the discourse alive until something gives. Something has got to give.
good luck
Weed Crackdown In San Diego
Did you this story eyo?
District Attorneys Gone Wild
The anti-marijuana San Diego prosecutor’s office is out of control.
The D.A., a Jeff Sessions clone, had the owner and the dispensary's lawyer, McElfresh arrested:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trials_and_error/2017/09...
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
What about being able to face the accuser?
Guess that only happens in court?
What about discovery?
Where's On the Cusp and other attorneys?
Hope this isn't a sign of more to come.
@Deja In Texas, the sealed
In Texas, the sealed indictment is broken at arrest or arraignment. One of the first things to look for is defects in the indictment. Sometimes arraignment is many months before your first court appearance for arraignment.
Our attorney-client privilege is the client's to waive, not the attorney. Certain acts constitute a waiver. If a client files a grievance on their attorney, the attorney has a right to spill their guts. Same if a client makes an agreement with a prosecutor to implicate their attorney as part of a plea bargain.
Seems the appellate courts are kicking the aggressive prosecutor's ass. Cool.
What is truly murky is the state taking the attorney's computer. Texas attorneys simply do not send strategy, or case/evidence specifics via email or text, as they can be discoverable, especially in civil cases.
With the case described in the slate article, I wonder what the sufficient information constituting probable cause to obtain the warrant to seize the computer evidence could have been.
I know defense attorneys who represent accused drug dealers have had their retainers seized as illegal fruits of the poisonous tree. In other words, drug money. None put the money in a bank. They run to the store and buy printer ink and reams of paper. And it isn't possible to have too much toilet paper.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Thank you, ma'am (OtC)
Glad to hear from you, and happy to absorb your insight.
"modern range war" at the northern border
thanks I didn't see that article or know that story. It feels like I have been watching the clampdown ever since 64 passed, knew the petty tyrants would cash in however they could. All sides.
Hmong cannabis growers pouring into Siskiyou County
Wha!? That's a lot of tea, doesn't sound as if any of it was planted sustainably either. Shasta is a holy place to some people, including me.
pew pew pew!
Ignorance about the environment is as unwelcome as the WalMart economy in my view. So fuck off? That's how I feel.
Huh! Already over quoted, the whole article needs reading to get something resembling the whole picture. Thanks.
This essay is about right and left, so which is which in the Hmong story? Who is who? You know what I mean. I pick Nobody.
Rodney Stooksbury 2020
I will add to the conundrum:
borrowing from above, separation of healthcare, wealthfare (those be the rich) and statefare (the questionable players, some are carnies). And Others have nuclear weapons, too.
Do we get floppy-passive and give up? Go to ground or under? Carry white flags?
I have opinions that change hourly. Like those on display in this thread.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
You know what blows this out of the water?
Welfare Reform
This was a republican wet dream since long before Reagan's welfare queens, but it took a democratic president to get it passed.
This took away millions of women and children's 'good stuff' and sent them deeper into poverty.
Then there's this good stuff, the crime bill that came with mandatory sentencing for crack cocaine being decades longer because it was cheaper than powder cocaine which was mostly bought by affluent white people.
The crime bill did even more catastrophic damage to poor people. To help pay for more police and prisons which Clinton gave $19 billion to, he took $17 billion from social programs such as HUD funding which started the war on the poor instead of poverty. Once the republicans saw a democrat defund social programs, they knew that they could get away with it too and now each year social programs get defunded even more.
The other hit poor people took because of the crime bill is that no one who has a felony record can qualify for housing programs. To make this more heinous, if a person who is living in public housing commits a felony, the whole damned family gets kicked out of their homes. This includes the children that Hillary is said to protect as well as women who no one has done more for than Hillary. It doesn't matter if anyone didn't know that little Jimmy was doing something wrong, the whole family gets punished.
Bill has said that the bill went too far, but when Hillary was confronted about the crime bill, she treated the person with contempt and dismissed them.
Has any democrat tried to undo the damage from these two bills? No. which blows what you wrote about democrats out of the water.
They don't care about anyone except their donors. This especially goes for Obama who oversaw the largest increase in income inequality since 1928.
These are only 3 issues that shows that the democrats are just as bad as the republicans. If you want to talk about their foreign policies views, this would need another essay.
I don't know if you actually believe that there is a difference between the two parties, but there isn't anything you can say that will prove to me that you are right.
@snoopydawg The fallacy in what you
The fallacy in what you're saying is that you're taking part of the picture and claiming it's the whole picture.
You can list some examples in which the Democrats ARE like the Republicans; I can list many others where they are far better (look at the recent healthcare vote).
Showing something bad the Democrats did doesn't show they're the same as the Republicans.
That's like saying that the police and criminals are the same, and I'll show you some examples of crooked police officers - that proves they're the same.
Enjoy this list, it's a R's wet dream
https://www.facebook.com/notes/ian-berman/when-you-say-you-miss-presiden...
When You Say You Miss President Obama . . .
IAN BERMAN·SUNDAY, MAY 7, 2017
Do you mean his bombing 7 Muslim countries?
Do you mean the terror he caused from his drones buzzing over so many foreign lands?
Do you mean the failed state he created in Libya?
Do you mean his support for Saudi Arabia’s destruction of Yemen?
Do you mean not condemning the coup in Egypt and providing aid thereafter in violation of U.S. Law?
Do you mean how his approval of the Honduran coup led to rampant crime and murder?
Do you mean supporting the coup in Ukraine and the Neo-Nazi Svoboda who provided the muscle for it?
Do you mean initiating the plans to spend $1 trillion on modernizing the nuclear triad?
Do you mean not prosecuting the war crime of invading Iraq without defensive justification?
Do you mean dismissing the prosecution of torture?
Do you mean the erosion of civil liberties while letting the NSA, FBI and CIA run wild?
Do you mean signing the NDAA which allows the military to hold an American citizen without charge or legal representation under the Executive’s determination as a terrorist?
Do you mean the reauthorization of the Patriot Act?
Do you mean changing decades-old law allowing for the government to propagate propaganda in the USA and towards American citizens?
Do you mean prosecuting whistle blowers instead of following up on their exposes? Like when whistle blowers such as Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Julian Asange, Bill Binney, John Kirakou were deemed criminals and not patriots?
Do you mean the continued militarization of the police?
Do you mean nominating a cabinet almost entirely chosen by Citigroup?
Do you mean the way he provided $16 TRILLION of low or no cost capital to essentially bankrupt companies during the financial crisis?
Do you mean NOT prosecuting Wall Street executives who defrauded mortgage backed investors of billions, laundered drug money and rigged the $400 - $800 Trillion LIBOR index?
Do you mean having a "Green President" who was actually globally neutral with all the fossil fuel projects supported around the world, including the Sec. State's export of fracking to 30 countries?
Do you mean giving BP a permit to drill in Alaska after destroying the Gulf of Mexico?
Do you mean standing idly by while protestors were doused with water cannons in freezing temperatures at Standing Rock?
Do you mean giving $400 billion a year to the healthcost © and pharmaceutical industries while dismissing single payer and public option on the first day of raising the issue?
Do you mean the continuation of essentially all income gains going to the top 10% of income earners and an unprecedented 95% of income gains going to the top 1% of earners?
Do you mean making permanent the taxation of investment income (which is especially applicable to the 0.1%) at lower rates than middle class wages?
Do you mean deporting over 2-1/2 million undocumented immigrants?
Do you mean changing U.S. policy to detain women and children seeking asylum and giving Corrections Corp. of America a $1 billion no-bid contract to do so?
Do you mean his not removing cannabis from Schedule 1 Controlled Substances?
I would say he earned the $65 million for his book deal. The 0.1% and their industries made fortunes with him in office.
- - - - - -
Ian Berman is an entrepreneur and former corporate banker at leading global banks in New York City. He now focuses on renewable energy, financial advisory services and writing about representative government, equitable public policies and ending American militarism and Israel’s continuing colonization of Palestine. He is the Co-Founder of Palestine 365, the Ongoing Oppression and its predecessor, Palestine 365, on Facebook.
© 2017. All rights reserved.
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
Mic drop, right freaking here! Booyah!!! Holy poop! Gobsmacked!
Um, that is phenomenal! Thank you for the link.
Exxxcceelleennttt!
Bo'ya baby. This pretty much sums up the Empty Suit president quite well.
Does this list cover all the deaths he caused when he decided every Tuesday which terrorists he wanted to murder? And does it include all the 'collateral damages' his drones caused? How about the millions of people in Yemen who are on the brink of starvation and dying from cholera?
Yep. There is a lot to miss now that he's out of office and meeting up with his pals George and Bill at the president's golfing event.
I Knew Obama Was Bad
Now I know he was even worse than I thought.
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
Fallacy?
Really? This is what you want to go with and not address the issues I brought up? These issues are important to me because they have affected my life.
This was why I would never vote for Hillary in any lifetime.
If you can't admit the damage they caused this country over two decades after they were in the WH, then I have nothing more to say to you.
@snoopydawg It's not correct
It's not correct that I 'didn't address' the issues you brought up.
I responded that you were giving one side of the story, but there's more.
It's actually you who did not respond to what I said.
The issue isn't only whether you want to vote for Hillary; I didn't want to either. The issue is what happens if you don't, and that's named trump, and you helped him win not voting for her.
There's nothing good or noble about helping a greater harm by not participating.
A little piece of advice Craig...
We don't guilt trip folks for their voting choices here at c99p.
The outcome belongs solely to
…the party who has the authority to take decisive action and set the wheels in motion.
The Democratic Party was warned again and again — for several years leading up to the 2016 elections — that forcing a Hillary Clinton candidacy upon the electorate would result in disaster for the Party. The Democratic Party was further warned that too many Democrats deemed her completely unacceptable regardless of the consequences — and that her unfavorables were so extreme that Democratic voters would not be able to close the deal and get her elected.
Yet the Party, knowing full well how deeply she was despised by the majority citizens across the nation, ran her as a candidate anyway. In the eight proceeding years, they never even bothered to build a bench or groom outstanding leaders for the Presidency.
The Party realized in January 2016, before the Primaries, that Clinton was going to lose. And they knew exactly why. One need only read at their leaked emails to see the truth of their fear and desperation. But the Party Elite convinced themselves that they had the political power to game the system and trick their way to victory with their dishonest and duplicitous schemes. They bet all of our lives on their selfish, greedy, and corrupted ambitions. In the end, they were reduced to pathetic chants of "USA, USA, USA!" and forced to run on the single desperate point that "Hillary was not Donald Trump." That was all they had.
Hillary Clinton's defeat belongs to the Democratic Party, alone. It is they who deliberately put Donald Trump in the White House.
@Pluto's Republic The issue I'd
The issue I'd add to the issue is the importance of the voters' views.
I think you make good points, but it's a bit too weighted as if the Democratic Party simply
appointed Hillary the nominee.
Hillary as a person has the right to run. To take that away from her because you and I think it's a mistake has implications I don't think either of us would want.
I think she was simply ambitious. I felt, and said - on DailyKOS where you can guess the response - that I felt she should CHOOSE not to run for the good of the country and let Bernie win.
Of course, she didn't do that - and we'd have to look a long time for a politician who did.
I think 535 of 535 members of Congress would all happily be president without feeling they should refuse because they aren't as good for the country as someone else.
Our gating mechanism for who should be is the voter (with the horribly corrupting influence of money on public opinion) - and that's for very good reasons, but it's for better or worse.
The fact is, a lot of Democrats passionately wanted Hillary as the nominee (I suspect a lot wanted her but not so passionately). I spoke to them online. I argued with them trying to suggest Bernie was better, and that was not easy - they weren't interested. I remember a detailed argument for switching from Hillary to Bernie getting a response of just the word "no". I'm critical of those people's judgment and feel they made a historic mistake disastrous for our country, but respect their right to do so and think they were doing what they thought was best.
It's tempting to want to blame Hillary, but I think the issue is not Hillary but the voters and the system's problems. Yes, she can be criticized for happily supporting those problems, but she didn't put them in place and she's not the issue. What we have to do is a lot harder - to deal with the issues with the voters who preferred Hillary.
What other choice is there? Would anything done to Hillary fix the problems?
As I said, the Democratic party had 8 years
…to build a deep bench of the best and and most visionary statesmen and women they could find. They had 8 years to groom them for Prime time. That has been the role of this private political club since the beginning. But Hillary was their one and only candidate since 2008, and their platform shifted to the right to chase bigger donors. That's why they lost election after election.
Let Hillary run. However, the Democratic Party is obligated to develop a winning platform that provides human rights for every man woman and child. Freedom from hunger. Affordable housing. Health Care on demand. Full education as far as they can go for each new generation, without indentured servitude to the banks. That is the definition of "Liberty." The Party has done just the opposite and abandoned those principles, instead chasing after the money they could make from influence peddling to the corporate class. They knowingly betrayed their constituents. Hillary was the perfect candidate for their new platform. But she also had the highest unfavorables of any presidential candidate in recent history in the United States. She couldn't win.
The problem isn't what to do about Hillary supporters. Or Bernie supporters. Or Americans who would like to be represented at the Federal level for once. The problem is how to form a coalition government, because without that, there is no democracy in the US.
People don't realize it yet, but the 2016 election dropped them smack in the middle of a constitutional crisis. That's really what's going on and that's why the deep state concocted that preposterous Russian hoax. Rebuilding the Democratic Party won't fix that, and it simply swells the number of Independents to the largest it's ever been. That, in turn, strangles what's left of Democracy and leaves the majority of the nation unrepresented.
The US has been a fascist nation for more than a century — where the government acts for benefit the private corporations and vise versa. The Republican Party brings that, and a lot of Americans support that. It makes sense to them. The Democratic Party has been the loyal opposition to the fascists during that same century century, defending and elevating workers and enacting protections that allow a middle class to form while maintaining an equal share of the nation's gains for everyone. The Democrats abandoned that role in the 1990s for personal gain. The way things stand, the Democrats will suffer crushing defeats in 2018 and 2020. It's not the candidate so much as the subversive platform that hurts them. People know the difference. The won't come out to vote when there are two fascist platforms that both service the corporations. They will only flood the polls with votes when there is Party platform on the ballot dedicated to helping the people to live the most fulfilling and enjoyable lives possible.
I don't think it is very complicated at all. The problem may be that it is just too simple.
@Craig234 Please see the ggersh
Please see the ggersh comment below.
And please proceed with your list of those acts or votes that set the democrats apart from moderate 1980's republicans.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Cops Are Worse Than Criminals
A criminal cannot get caught on video gunning down an unarmed American citizen and not be prosecuted. Law Enforcement officers steal more property through civil asset forfeiture than criminals. Sheriff Corona, Sheriff Baca and Sheriff Arapaio are typical of law enforcement officers in America.
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
OT but you reminded me of a single mom arrested
@snoopydawg (since the only reply button below the last comment is a general reply to the essay)
You remindedme of the following:
She was a single mother of color living with her teenage son in Houston some years back. She was arrested for chaining up her son while she was at work. Sounds hideous, huh?
He could reach everything in the kitchen, the restroom, and the couch including the tv remote. What he couldn't do was run the streets with his gangbanger friends. She was commended, yet chastised by the court.
More on topic, I completely agree with your comment!
Thank you for opening this discussion, Craig.
It was an important one for all involved, along with many of our readers. It allowed folks to summarize their thinking and observations, and make revisions where needed. That activity established higher plateaus with solid foundations from which new ideas can be more efficiently explored and executed.
I hope it brought you completion, as well. You handled yourself well, in my opinion.
@Pluto's Republic Thank you very much for
Thank you very much for the kind words. I hope it has the benefit you mention.
@Pluto's Republic
What he said!
Thanks for the very interesting essay and the thread discussion it inspired, Craig234!
Edited due to belatedly noticing my not having added the name of the person actually addressed...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.