We'll see soon enough

Started by Henry_

Debate the issues that are the valued by liberals in this political chat forum. Try to stay on topic and respect your fellow liberals. We all feel strongly about certain issues. Keep that in mind as you debate with your peersin the liberal forum. Forum Rules

PreviousNext
136 replies to this topic Sticky this thread

User avatar
Posted by Henry_
  10,973 17 Nov 2016, 1:15 pm

Henry_ User avatar
      
      

Posts: 8,502
Progressive Progressive political affiliation
Politics: Progressive
Money: 10,973.32

Log in or register to remove this ad..
* The hypocrisy of this speech is vomit worthy. Always avoiding the ELEPHANT in the room, corruption
in the political process. He adds, if we can't compromise and engage in the democratic process together
democracy falls apart. Again, if you can't bring yourself to discuss the strong hold lobbyists have on policy
makers, maybe its best to just shut the fuck up for now.

Obama defends globalisation on Germany visit 16 November 2016

US President Barack Obama has made a strong defence of globalisation as he arrived in Germany on his final visit to Europe before leaving office.
In a joint article, Mr Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that with the global economy developing faster than ever, co-operation was vital.
Mr Obama arrived in Germany from Athens where he had warned of threats to modern democracy.
He is seeking to calm unease following the election of Donald Trump.

In the article in the business magazine, Wirtschaftswoche (in German), he and Mrs Merkel made a strong case for international trade in contrast to Mr Trump's more protectionist stance.

Trump's rude awakening for Germany
Trump and trade: A radical agenda?
"There will be no return to a world before globalisation," they wrote.
"We owe it to our companies and our citizens, indeed to the entire world community, to broaden and deepen our co-operation."
The two leaders voiced support for the proposed Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the US and the EU.
By contrast, Mr Trump is a fierce critic of global free trade agreements and welcomed the UK's decision in June to leave the EU.

In Athens, Mr Obama acknowledged that globalisation had created a "sense of injustice" and a "course correction" was needed to address growing inequality.
"When we see people, global elites, wealthy corporations seemingly living by a different set of rules, avoiding taxes, manipulating loopholes... this feeds a profound sense of injustice," he told Greek leaders.

Mr Obama's visit to Greece was marked by street protests by leftist groups which denounced US "imperialism". Police used tear gas against about 2,500 demonstrators who had tried to reach the city centre on Tuesday.

The US president will stay in Germany until Friday and then head to Peru.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38006937
0
Log in or register to remove this ad..

User avatar
Posted by Henry_
  10,973 17 Nov 2016, 1:23 pm

Henry_ User avatar
      
      

Posts: 8,502
Progressive Progressive political affiliation
Politics: Progressive
Money: 10,973.32

The Future of Transatlantic Relations
By President Barack Obama and Chancellor Angela Merkel

Germany and the United States are deeply linked together: Our joint history has led us through both bright and dark chapters and resulted in the deep friendship we enjoy today. That friendship is based on our shared commitment to personal freedom and dignity, which only a vibrant democracy under the rule of law can guarantee.

Our countries share a joint responsibility to protect and preserve our way of life. It is in this spirit that we are working hard to ensure that international law and norms are respected around the globe – which remains a prerequisite for stability and prosperity. Our countries are committed to collective defense within the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO) because we want to preserve the security of the Euro-Atlantic area as a whole. We cooperate closely in the fight against terror, including in the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, because we must protect our citizens and because we will not sacrifice our way of life to the enemies of freedom. Our deep respect for human dignity compels us to provide humanitarian relief and aid for millions of refugees worldwide, because we know it is our treatment of those most vulnerable that determines the true strength of our values. And U.S.-German partnership was essential to achieving a global agreement in Paris that offers the world a framework for protecting our planet.

These values of democracy, justice and freedom form the foundation of our successful economies. Both Germans and Americans know that these principles are the basis for creativity and innovation which drive our economic development. And both our countries embrace the idea that the socially responsible market economy, also includes a commitment to social security, advancement opportunities, quality education for all, and an advanced and efficient infrastructure. The paths that we choose in pursuit of these goals, like how we organize our social security system or our universities, may vary, but the underlying bedrock of our shared values is strong.

On this firm basis of shared values, German-American economic relations are flourishing. Europe and the United States form the largest economic zone in the world, accounting for one third of global trade and almost half of the global gross domestic product. Strong German-American economic relations form an unshakeable core of this zone. Since 2015, the United States has become Germany’s most important trading partner with a trade volume of 173 billion euros, and conversely, Germany has become a cornerstone of U.S. economic relations with the European Union. Indeed, the significance of transatlantic trade is even more impressive when we look at trade between the United States and whole of the EU: the trading volume in 2015 amounted to 620 billion euros, the largest between any two partners worldwide. Behind these impressive figures are millions of companies and employees who produce these traded goods and services and whose jobs depend on them.

Of course, German-American relations go far beyond trade. Our companies invest to a great extent in each other’s country; they cooperate with each other in projects, joint ventures, and in investments. Germans make pilgrimages to Silicon Valley, where people practice and think about the future of the digital economy more than anywhere else. Americans thrive in Germany’s many world-class manufacturing and engineering companies, small and large. Americans and Germans learn from each other’s labor systems and study how each benefits their citizens: Americans study Germany’s remarkable labor apprenticeship system and Germans learn from how American companies benefit from the United States’ spectacular diversity.

The basis of such close economic relations is often the personal contact between our citizens. Our people flow across the Atlantic as students, scientists, artists, employees and tourists. Our two-way trade and investment opens new opportunities for synergies, new products, and innovations in technology. At the end of 2014, bilateral investments between Germany and the U.S. totaled $339 billion, creating high-paying jobs in both our countries.

Simply put: we are stronger when we work together. At a time when the global economy is evolving more quickly than at any point in human history, and the scope of global challenges has never had higher stakes, such cooperation is now more urgent than ever. Germany and the United States are spearheading this effort, including through our work in the G-20, the Presidency of which Germany will assume this December. Together in the G-20 we are working to both strengthen global growth and make it more inclusive, while also addressing pressing broad global challenges like climate change, migration, and global health security, and specific challenges like addressing excess capacity in steel and other industries. We also see great potential for successful cooperation in future-oriented areas such as the digitalization of the workplace.

Our shared conviction about the power of trade and investment to lift living standards prompted us to pursue the important project of establishing a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP). There is no question that both German and American employers, workers, consumers, and farmers would profit from T-TIP. Negotiations started three years ago and, considering the complexity of these issues, have made solid progress. An agreement that knits our economies closer together, based on rules that reflect our shared values, would help us grow and remain globally competitive for decades to come. Today, many U.S. and European companies and employees already benefit from transatlantic trade and investments. Global markets and production chains are increasingly intertwined. We realize that decisions in one country have tangible effects in others. To meet all these challenges, we need rules that are currently being negotiated in the framework of T-TIP.

Today we find ourselves at a crossroads—the future is upon us, and we will never return to a pre-globalization economy. Germans and Americans we must seize the opportunity to shape globalization based on our values and our ideas. We owe it to our industries and our peoples—indeed, to the global community—to broaden and deepen our cooperation.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... nsatlantic
0

User avatar
Posted by Henry_
  10,973 17 Nov 2016, 1:36 pm

Henry_ User avatar
      
      

Posts: 8,502
Progressive Progressive political affiliation
Politics: Progressive
Money: 10,973.32

Clinton did win the popular vote, see the decline in the graph....impressive, huh? Woohoo.
A near 10 MILLION lesser votes than Obama received in 2008 but it was her "turn" so, whatever.

Image

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cw2OIGhXgAAQBUu.jpg
0

User avatar
Posted by Henry_
  10,973 17 Nov 2016, 3:24 pm

Henry_ User avatar
      
      

Posts: 8,502
Progressive Progressive political affiliation
Politics: Progressive
Money: 10,973.32

Edward Snowden Verified account


@Snowden

Edward Snowden Retweeted Ryan Gallagher
Some still try to claim mass surveillance is about counter-terrorism. But if you look at the targets, you'll find the truth is darker:
Edward Snowden added,
Image Ryan Gallagher @
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/799020499703447552
0

User avatar
Posted by Henry_
  10,973 18 Nov 2016, 11:13 am

Henry_ User avatar
      
      

Posts: 8,502
Progressive Progressive political affiliation
Politics: Progressive
Money: 10,973.32

Look Hillary, see what you and your like minded have brought forth:

Donald Trump Selects Senator Jeff Sessions for Attorney General
By ERIC LICHTBLAU,
MAGGIE HABERMAN and
ASHLEY PARKER
NOV. 18, 2016
WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump has selected Senator Jeff Sessions, a conservative from Alabama who became a close adviser after endorsing him early in his campaign, to be the attorney general of the United States, according to officials close to the transition.
Mr. Sessions was also under consideration for secretary of defense, creating debate within the Trump transition team over which job he should fill.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/po ... .html?_r=0
0

User avatar
Posted by Henry_
  10,973 18 Nov 2016, 12:02 pm

Henry_ User avatar
      
      

Posts: 8,502
Progressive Progressive political affiliation
Politics: Progressive
Money: 10,973.32

November 17, 2016
Sanders and Nurses Join Forces to Fight Trump and Establishment Democrats
National Nurses United also attempted to deliver a letter calling on Senator Mitch McConnell to not privatize Medicare and instead implement a single-payer system

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?opt ... ival=17741
0

User avatar
Posted by Henry_
  10,973 18 Nov 2016, 2:27 pm

Henry_ User avatar
      
      

Posts: 8,502
Progressive Progressive political affiliation
Politics: Progressive
Money: 10,973.32

Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo, an Army veteran, will become Trump’s CIA director
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politic ... rylink=cpy
0

User avatar
Posted by Henry_
  10,973 18 Nov 2016, 2:37 pm

Henry_ User avatar
      
      

Posts: 8,502
Progressive Progressive political affiliation
Politics: Progressive
Money: 10,973.32

A Divided US: Sociologist Arlie Hochschild on the 2016 Presidential Election

Wednesday, 02 November 2016
By Kristian Haug

Truthout | Interview


In her new book, Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right, Arlie Russell Hochschild scrutinizes a divided United States and focuses on the white lower-middle class's sense of belonging in their own country. In the book, we join her journey from Berkeley, California, to the southern state of Louisiana. The result is a prudent and compassionate story about many Americans who are managing life but not making progress.

Truthout invited Hochschild -- a professor emerita of sociology at the University of California, Berkeley, who has authored nine books, written a wide range of academic articles and received multiple honorary awards -- to talk about her experiences in Louisiana and the light they shed on widespread support for Donald Trump in the US.

Kristian Haug: What motivated you to spend five years in the state of Louisiana?

Arlie Hochschild: Already in 2011, the handwriting was on the wall. Rhetoric on the left and right was heating up. Congress was at a standstill. A high proportion of Americans had accepted the rumor that Obama was neither an American nor a Christian. There were signs that the two sides were living in different worlds, in different truths. I realized many things that I've advocated all my life called for some good government -- paid family leave for new parents, for example -- and that in this climate, such a reform would never come to pass. So that's what set me off.

Then, as now ... the newspapers were filled with strong, often angry, disagreement. At the same time, the people we know personally agree with us. That's because most of us live in geographic, electronic and medial enclaves. So to talk to the other side, we have to get out of our enclave. So I set out to find a place in the United States that was as much the opposite from Berkeley, California, as I could find.

Who are the "strangers in their own land"? And when did they become strangers?

They are members of mainly older white lower-middle class to blue-collar in the South; Republicans, very conservative, and very religious, many of them. Many are very fine people, by the way. One of the findings in the book is that one can relate human being to human being who can't and should not be dismissed, and with whom it is possible to find some common ground.

They felt like strangers in the sense that -- they were all members of the Tea Party, I should say -- they felt that mainstream America had left them and had gone by, didn't see them, didn't recognize who they were and neither political party spoke to their feelings and interests. In this sense, they felt like strangers in their own land.
I'll give you an example of that. One woman I spoke to said, "I'm really glad you've come to interview us, because we are the fly-over-state and people think of the South that we're ignorant, backward, that we have old-fashioned attitudes, that we're pro-family, pro-life and that many people think we're racist when we're not, and so they write us off, they call us rednecks, so thanks for coming to see who we really are."

You've stated that the persons you meet have every right to blame the system. Why do they not do so?

The system we're talking about is the state government of Louisiana, the poorest state in the nation, with poor schools, hospitals and little regulation of polluting industry. But the reason they did not say, "Hey, let's get some good government, we have problems, let's fix them," is that something else felt yet more unfair. That's the secret revelation; the important point of this book, that what I thought looked unfair and unreasonable was not what they felt was so. What I thought their interests were did not correspond to what they thought their interests were.

They felt marginalized. They were religious in a secularizing state. They were white in an increasingly Brown state. They were traditional in an increasingly liberal state. Most of all, they felt that the economic arrow that hit Black [people (and continues to do so)] is going to hit them -- especially blue-collar whites -- now, too. So it was a constellation of all of those factors -- demographic, cultural and economic -- that reached a certain tipping point, after which they felt: "This isn't even my country." It left them feeling very desperate about being recognized and having their issues acknowledged.

Why do the people you meet and spend time with in Louisiana support Donald Trump?

Many came to Trump reluctantly. They name an objection, then come to a "but," after which they tell me why they support him. One woman said, "We are from the Tea Party. We're for very small government, but Trump wants to get 90,000 new American soldiers and boots on the ground. That's going to cost a lot of money. He wants to kick out all non-documented Mexicans. That's going to take a whole surveillance apparatus that's going to cost a lot of money, and I -- as a Tea Party member -- am for smaller government, so I don't like that about Trump, but there is no one else that speaks to the issues I care about." That was her "but."

Another said, "Trump seems mean and he's always criticizing and shaming people and makes fun of a disabled reporter. Our Lord Jesus tells us not to do that. I don't like that about Trump. But nobody else is speaking to my issues."

Another man said, "I live in a very polluted bayou. I'd like to get this bayou cleaned up." This is a guy I describe in the book, who lost his home by a sinkhole. He said, "And Trump plans to abolish that Environmental Protection Agency." I said to him, "How could you possibly be voting for Trump when you lost your home because of a poorly regulated drilling company? How can it be that you're voting for a guy who's getting rid of the main watchdog?" He answered, "But Hillary is not a possibility."
in full: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/3 ... l-election
0

User avatar
Posted by Henry_
  10,973 18 Nov 2016, 6:07 pm

Henry_ User avatar
      
      

Posts: 8,502
Progressive Progressive political affiliation
Politics: Progressive
Money: 10,973.32

Winning Back the Working Class: A Time of Reckoning for Progressives
By not acting on behalf of the nation's struggling workers, the Left will continue to cede the jobs terrain to Donald Trump.

By Les Leopold | November 17, 2016


Over the next two years, 1,400 Carrier air conditioner workers will see their decent-paying jobs migrate to Mexico. This highly profitable Indiana facility, represented by the United Steel Workers, will make even more money south of the border, where workers earn less in one day than the Indiana employees make in one hour, according to The New York Times. (A YouTube video of the heartbreaking plant closing announcement has nearly 4 million views.)

While Hillary Clinton remained silent on this impending catastrophe, Donald Trump turned this facility into the poster child for what’s wrong with US trade policy. He pledged that if the plant moved, he would place a 35-percent tariff on all Carrier products imported from Mexico as well as a similar duty on the Mexican products of its parent company, United Technologies.

Trump boasted he would make the company cry uncle: “I’ll get a call from the head of Carrier and he’ll say, ‘Mr. President, we’ve decided to stay in the United States. That’s what’s going to happen — 100 percent.”

Carrier became the 100-percent battering ram with which to pound Hillary Clinton and her embrace of NAFTA and other trade deals. In doing so, Trump snatched the plant closing issue away from the Democrats, something the party apparatchiks didn’t recognize until the Trump votes poured in from the Rust Belt
.
The Carrier case, however, was not just the usual media meme about Trump backing the less-educated, white working class. In fact, the threatened Indianapolis plant is 50 percent African-American. Women make up half the workforce on the assembly lines and the facility also employs dozens of recent Burmese immigrants, well regarded by their co-workers. So making this facility great again actually means coming to the aid of America’s increasingly diverse labor force.

But Trump is stumbling into something far more problematic than trade deals. At the heart of this story is the financial strip-mining of America organized and led by Wall Street.


Why does United Technology want to move to Mexico?
Let’s round up the usual suspects:
in full: http://billmoyers.com/story/winning-bac ... gressives/
0

User avatar
Posted by Henry_
  10,973 18 Nov 2016, 6:26 pm

Henry_ User avatar
      
      

Posts: 8,502
Progressive Progressive political affiliation
Politics: Progressive
Money: 10,973.32

11/11/16 Gareth Porter on switching sides in Syria again By Scott Horton - November 16, 2016


Gareth Porter, author of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, discusses the similarities between the Russian/Syrian bombing of Aleppo, the 2003 US bombing of Iraq, and Israel’s 2014 bombing of Gaza; and Obama’s apparent change in Syria policy as he targets Jabhat al-Nusra – a formidable opponent of Assad.

https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/sc ... des-syria/

Scott Horton is Managing Director of The Libertarian Institute, host of Antiwar Radio for Pacifica, 90.7 FM KPFK in Los Angeles and KUCR 88.3 in Riverside, podcasts the Scott Horton Show from scotthorton.org, and is the Opinion Editor of Antiwar.com. He’s conducted more than 4,000 interviews since 2003. He is a fan of, but no relation to the lawyer from Harper’s. Scott lives in Austin, Texas with his wife, investigative reporter Larisa Alexandrovna.
0

User avatar
Posted by Henry_
  10,973 18 Nov 2016, 7:21 pm

Henry_ User avatar
      
      

Posts: 8,502
Progressive Progressive political affiliation
Politics: Progressive
Money: 10,973.32

Spinning Bannon as ‘Provocateur’ Who ‘Relishes Combativeness’ By Janine Jackson

November 18, 2016

There’s a difference between bad news and bad reporting. We’re seeing a lot of both these days, as each Trump Cabinet choice hurls us deeper into dystopia.
For example: How do you describe a man who propagates white supremacy, misogyny and antisemitism? If you’re the New York Times, you call him a “provocateur.” If you’re the AP, you say his hire is evidence of Trump’s “brash, outsider instincts.”

Stephen Bannon, the Trump campaign chief executive and recently named “Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor” for the Trump White House, hasdeclared of Breitbart, thewebsite he still heads, “We’re the platform for the alt-right”—that being, by Breitbart’s own description, a coalition of advocates of “scientific race differences” with those who “believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved” and online traffickers in racist and antisemitic stereotypes and harassment, along with a significant admixture of pro-Hitler neo-Nazis.
Image
Breitbart (7/1/15) ran this celebration of the Confederate flag just two weeks after Confederacy fan Dylann Roof murdered nine Charleston churchgoers in an attempt to start a race war.
Under Bannon, Breitbart ran the story “Hoist It High and Proud: The Confederate Flag Proclaims a Glorious Heritage” (7/1/15) in the wake of the Charleston church killing of nine black people by a guy who said he wanted to start a race war. The site ran stories calling Bill Kristol a “renegade Jew” (5/15/16), suggesting the response to online harassment of women is for women to “log off” and let men enjoy the internet (7/5/16), and lots of stories along the lines of “Anti-White Racism: the Hate That Dare Not Speak Its Name” (4/26/16).

But if you’re the Washington Post, you describe him as a guy who “relishes combativeness” and “has openly attacked congressional leadership”!
Ubiquitous media constructions that are variants of the idea that Bannon “has been accused” of “having ties” to hateful extremists linguistically insulate him, and raise the question of whether some in media could ever identify anyone as an actual misogynist white-supremacist antisemite.

The Washington Post‘s Alexandra Petri (11/15/16) called out congressmembers on this point, mocking their position:
Just because something attracts antisemites and racists doesn’t mean that it, itself, is either of those things. It doesn’t mean that it supports their views. Who knows why anyone is attracted to anything? Weird coincidences happen all the time.

But with lines like, “You say, ‘potato enthusiastically supported by the Ku Klux Klan’s David Duke’; I say, ‘controversial potato,’” it’s clear her critique applies to some of her colleagues as well.

Janine Jackson is the program director of FAIR and the producer and host of CounterSpin.
http://fair.org/home/spinning-bannon-as ... ativeness/
0

User avatar
Posted by Henry_
  10,973 18 Nov 2016, 11:02 pm

Henry_ User avatar
      
      

Posts: 8,502
Progressive Progressive political affiliation
Politics: Progressive
Money: 10,973.32

Denver, Aurora police say they will not start enforcing federal immigration laws
Colorado cities respond to immigrants’ concerns about Donald Trump’s election


Colorado’s two largest police departments have issued statements in the wake of Donald Trump’s election to tell residents they will not enforce federal immigration laws.
Since the Republican’s election, immigrants in Denver, Aurora and other Colorado cities have raised concerns about their futures. Trump campaigned on the promise that he would deport millions of undocumented immigrants and would build a wall along the border with Mexico.
About 109,000 people living in Denver, or 16 percent of the city’s population, were born outside the United States, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In Aurora, 20 percent of the city’s 359,407 residents are foreign born, the Census Bureau’s 2015 statistics show.

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/15/de ... tion-laws/
0

User avatar
Posted by Henry_
  10,973 18 Nov 2016, 11:04 pm

Henry_ User avatar
      
      

Posts: 8,502
Progressive Progressive political affiliation
Politics: Progressive
Money: 10,973.32

November 16, 2016
Senator Bernie Sanders on Trump Presidency
Former Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) delivered remarks and took questions from Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne on the impact of the 2016 election. During his remarks Senator Sanders called on President-elect Donald Trump to rescind the appointment of Stephen Bannon as chief strategist.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?418660-1/ ... presidency
0

User avatar
Posted by Henry_
  10,973 18 Nov 2016, 11:13 pm

Henry_ User avatar
      
      

Posts: 8,502
Progressive Progressive political affiliation
Politics: Progressive
Money: 10,973.32

Obama Refuses to Pardon Edward Snowden. Trump’s New CIA Pick Wants Him Dead.

November 18 2016, 1:35 p.m.


President Obama indicated on Friday that he won’t pardon NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, even as President-elect Donald Trump announced his pick to run the CIA: Kansas congressman Mike Pompeo, who has called for “the traitor Edward Snowden” to be executed.

Pompeo has supported nearly unfettered NSA surveillance, has blamed Muslim leaders for condoning terror, and is one of the most hyperbolic members of Congress when it comes to describing the Islamic State, which he has called “an existential threat to America” and “the most lethal and powerful terrorist group ever to have existed.”

In an interview with Obama published on Friday, German newspaper Der Spiegel asked: “Are you going to pardon Edward Snowden?” Obama replied: “I can’t pardon somebody who hasn’t gone before a court and presented themselves, so that’s not something that I would comment on at this point.”

But P.S. Ruckman, editor of the Pardon Power blog said Obama is wrong to suggest he couldn’t pardon Snowden if he wanted to. Ruckman noted that Obama has previously only granted pardons and commutations to people who have already been convicted. “I just think what he may have better said is: ‘I prefer that he present himself to a court and then we’ll talk turkey.’ But technically in terms of the Constitution, there are no restrictions at all.”

The operative Supreme Court ruling, from 1886, states that “The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. The power is not subject to legislative control.”

Obama said that although Snowden “raised some legitimate concerns,” he “did not follow the procedures and practices of our intelligence community.”
Obama also suggested that the debate is between people holding two extremist positions: people who “think we can take a 100-percent absolutist approach to protecting privacy” and “those who think that security is the only thing and don’t care about privacy.”

Very few people actually occupy either extreme. But Pompeo, a three-term congressman and former Army officer, is about as close as it comes to the latter.

In a 2014 letter, Pompeo accused Snowden of “intentional distortion of truth that he and his media enablers have engaged in.” Pompeo supports virtually no legal barriers to having the NSA spy on Americans, and has alarmed civil liberties advocates with many of the positions he has taken while serving on the House Intelligence Committee. Not only has he argued that the NSA should resume its phone records program, he has called on Congress to “pass a law re-establishing collection of all metadata, and combining it with publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database.”
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/18/oba ... -him-dead/
0

User avatar
Posted by Henry_
  10,973 18 Nov 2016, 11:44 pm

Henry_ User avatar
      
      

Posts: 8,502
Progressive Progressive political affiliation
Politics: Progressive
Money: 10,973.32

*Delusional :

Clinton Aide: Hillary Lost Because Women Suffer From “Internalized Misogyny” 1, November 17, 2016
jonathan turle



We recently discussed how, within minutes of the loss on election night, Clinton aides began to spin the loss and entirely the fault of FBI Director James Comey — a spin picked up by Clinton herself the next day. Many of us have questioned that spin in light of Clinton’s long-standing low polls on truthfulness and her ranking as (with Trump) the most unpopular nominee of a major party for the presidency. Now, former Clinton campaign communications director Jess McIntosh has come up with a new culprit. Of course, it is not the Democratic establishment that engineered the nomination despite ample warning signs in the polls. It was not the campaign that preferred spin to honesty at every turn. And it was not the candidate herself. No, it was the self-loathing and inherent sexism of women.

In an appearance on MSNBC (which seems at times to be moving through the stages of grieving of Kübler-Ross), McInstosh insisted that the problem was with sexist, self-hating women: “Internalized misogyny is a real thing and this is a thing we have to be talking about as we go through and see.” She added “We as a society react poorly to women seeking positions of power. We are uncomfortable about that and we seek to justify that uncomfortable feeling because it can’t possibly be because we don’t want to see a woman in that position of power. As we go through these numbers, as we figure out exactly what happened with turnout, it seems to be white college-educated women . . . We have work to do talking to those women about what happened this year and why we would vote against our self-interest.”

Of course, there could be a more obvious answer: people really did not like Hillary as a leader regardless of her gender. It may be that the large numbers of women refused to vote for Hillary simply because she was a woman. Clinton and Trump were the most unpopular politicians ever to be nominated for president and over 60 percent of voters viewed Clinton as fundamentally dishonest. None of that stopped the DNC from engineering her victory over Bernie Sanders who presented precisely the populist campaign that many voters were looking for. Clinton had the Democratic establishment and many allies in the media — everyone agreed except the public. That was enough . . . until the voters had their say on November 8th.
Jess McIntosh is the Communications Director for Emily’s list and previously served as spokesperson for Senator Al Franken.

McIntosh’s statement reflects what turned off a lot of women that I spoke with. The Clinton campaign hammered away at different groups “voting their interests” and specifically drum beat the notion that women had to support Clinton as the first possible female president. It was all about “self-interest.” That pitch itself can be viewed as sexist. Many women did not trust Clinton and saw nothing in her that spoke to their lives or the difficulties of their families. Notably, Clinton was losing among various female groups to Sanders in the primary. Again, Clinton staffers spoke of educating women to see their self-interest, but tended to avoid the anomaly of running female-centric themes without the support of most women. For many women and men, picking a president is not about “self-interest” but the best for their country and their families.

According to the New York Times, Clinton carried only 54 percent of the female vote against Donald Trump. However, nearly twice as many white women without college degrees voted for Trump than for Hillary and she basically broke almost even on college-educated white women (with Hillary taking 51 percent). Trump won the majority of white women at 53 percent.

The dismissal of white women by the Clinton camp as self-loathing, sexist robots is another effort at avoidance. The Democratic leadership and consultants proved out-of-touch with the public despite polls that gave ample indication that Clinton was the worst possible candidate to put forward in this anti-establishment period. Nevertheless, the Democrats appear to be rallying around again many of the same leaders and the Clinton family (including reportedly grooming Chelsea as the new “brand” name candidate). The position of aides like McIntosh is that the fault is that white women simply did not listen or learn. It was not the message or the candidate or her campaign. It is a remarkably insulting spin but it seems to be preferred to the more difficult questions raised by the campaign.
https://jonathanturley.org/2016/11/17/c ... ore-105871
0

User avatar
Posted by Henry_
  10,973 19 Nov 2016, 12:13 am

Henry_ User avatar
      
      

Posts: 8,502
Progressive Progressive political affiliation
Politics: Progressive
Money: 10,973.32

Three Myths About Clinton’s Defeat in Election 2016 Debunked Posted on
November 14, 2016 by
Lambert Strether

By Lambert Strether of Corrente.
This post is not an explainer about why and how Clinton lost (and Trump won). I think we’re going to be sorting that out for awhile. Rather, it’s a simple debunking of common talking points by Clinton loyalists and Democrat Establishment operatives; the sort of talking point you might hear on Twitter, entirely shorn of caveats and context. For each of the three talking points, I’ll present an especially egregious version of the myth, followed by a rebuttals.
Realize that Trump’s margin of victory was incredibly small. From the Washington Post:
How Trump won the presidency with razor-thin margins in swing states
Of the more than 120 million votes cast in the 2016 election, 107,000 votes in three states [Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania] effectively decided the election.

Of course, America’s first-past-the-post system and the electoral college amplify small margins into decisive results. And it was the job of the Clinton campaign to find those 107,000 votes and win them; the Clinton operation turned out to be weaker than anyone would have imagined when it counted. However, because Trump has what might be called an institutional mandate — both the executive and legislative branches and soon, perhaps, the judicial — the narrowness of his margin means he doesn’t have a popular mandate. Trump has captured the state, but by no means civil society; therefore, the opposition that seeks to delegitimize him is in a stronger position than it may realize. Hence the necessity for reflection; seeking truth from facts, as the saying goes. Because the following talking points prevent a (vulgar) identity politics-dominated Democrat Party from owning its loss, debunking them is then important beyond winning your Twitter wars. I’m trying to spike the Blame Cannons!
Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Racism
Here’s a headline showing the talking point from a Vox explainer:
Trump’s win is a reminder of the incredible, unbeatable power of racism

The subtext here is usually that if you don’t chime in with vehement agreement, you’re a racist yourself, and possibly a racist Trump supporter. There are two reasons this talking point is false.
First, voter caring levels dropped from 2012 to 2016, especially among black Democrats. Carl Beijer:
From 2012 to 2016, both men and women went from caring about the outcome to not caring. Among Democratic men and women, as well as Republican women, care levels dropped about 3-4 points; Republican men cared a little less too, but only by one point. Across the board, in any case, the plurality of voters simply didn’t care.

Beijer includes the following chart (based on Edison exit polling cross-referenced with total population numbers from the US Census):
Image
Beijer interprets:
White voters cared even less in 2016 then in 2012, when they also didn’t care; most of that apathy came from white Republicans compared to white Democrats, who dropped off a little less. Voters of color, in contrast, continued to care – but their care levels dropped even more, by 8 points (compared to the 6 point drop-off among white voters). Incredibly, that drop was driven entirely by a 9 point drop among Democratic voters of color which left Democrats with only slim majority 51% support; Republicans, meanwhile, actually gained support among people of color.

Beijer’s data is born out by anecdote from Milwaukee, Wisconsin:
Urban areas, where black and Hispanic voters are concentrated along with college-educated voters, already leaned toward the Democrats, but Clinton did not get the turnout from these groups that she needed. For instance, black voters did not show up in the same numbers they did for Barack Obama, the first black president, in 2008 and 2012.

Remember, Trump won Wisconsin by a whisker. So for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that black voters stayed home because they were racist, costing Clinton Wisconsin.
Second, counties that voted for Obama in 2012 voted for Trump in 2016. The Washington Post:
These former Obama strongholds sealed the election for Trump
Of the nearly 700 counties that twice sent Obama to the White House, a stunning one-third flipped to support Trump.
The Obama-Trump counties were critical in delivering electoral victories for Trump. Many of them fall in states that supported Obama in 2012, but Trump in 2016. In all, these flipped states accounted for 83 electoral votes. (Michigan and New Hampshire could add to this total, but their results were not finalized as of 4 p.m. Wednesday.)

Here’s the chart:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/ ... unked.html
0

User avatar
Posted by Henry_
  10,973 19 Nov 2016, 9:43 am

Henry_ User avatar
      
      

Posts: 8,502
Progressive Progressive political affiliation
Politics: Progressive
Money: 10,973.32

Donald Trump’s mass deportation plan is similar to Barack Obama’s – but comes with added dangers
The Obama administration has deported more people than any other president in US history
Feliks Garcia
New York Wednesday 16 November 2016

Fears among immigrant communities across the United States have risen following the election of Donald Trump, who has pledged to deport some two- to three-million immigrants immediatelyupon taking office.

However, at surface-level Mr Trump’s promise does not sound all that different from what President Barack Obama has already implemented.
Mr Trump launched his campaign with particular focus on immigrants from Mexico, criminalising them with broad brushstrokes. In his now infamous June 2015 campaign announcement, he referred to Mexican immigrants as rapists and drug traffickers, solidified with his vow to build a wall along the already-militarised southern border.

Since his stunning defeat of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, he has only reaffirmed his promise to carry out mass deportations of immigrants in the US – stepping away from his earlier pledge to remove all 11 million unauthorised immigrants only slightly. Instead, he now wants to carry out the immediate removal of immigrants convicted of crimes.

“What we are going to do,” he told 60 Minutes, “is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records – gang members, drug dealers, we have a lot of these people, probably two million – it could be even three million. We are getting them out of the country, or we are going to incarcerate.
“But we’re getting them out of the country, they’re here illegally.”

It is unclear where Mr Trump drew his figures to determine that there are up to three million unauthorised immigrants with criminal records. Past figures from the Department of Homeland Security estimated that 1.9 million “removable criminal aliens” lived in the US in 2013.

But Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) carried out some 2.5 million deportations between 2009 and 2015, under Mr Obama.
“There’s a certain continuity between what has been proposed [by Trump] and what has been going on [under Obama],” Anthony Enriquez, the Equal Justice Works Emerson fellow at the Immigrant Defence Project, told The Independent. “The issue of enforcement really begins with the Department of Homeland Security, that has just grown to really gigantic proportions.

“The infrastructure to carry out his announced plans already exists. The idea of mass deportation has already been normalised.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 21831.html
0

User avatar
Posted by Henry_
  10,973 19 Nov 2016, 10:25 am

Henry_ User avatar
      
      

Posts: 8,502
Progressive Progressive political affiliation
Politics: Progressive
Money: 10,973.32

* Thanks, DNC..GREAT job you and Hillary accomplished..bravo.

Civil-Rights Groups Blast Jeff Sessions’ Record

Several major civil-rights organizations, including the NAACP and the ACLU, are expressing outrage that President-elect Donald Trump has picked Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions to be the next attorney general of the United States.

A statement from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund blasted Sessions’ “decades-long record—from his early days as a prosecutor to his present role as a senator—of opposing civil rights and equality.” President and Director-Counsel Sherrilyn Ifill wrote, “It is unimaginable that he could be entrusted to serve as the chief law-enforcement officer for this nation’s civil-rights laws. This is yet another signal from the incoming administration that it is not only prepared to turn its back on equality; it is actively working to continue to sow division and undo decades of progress.”

The selection followed a meeting between Trump and Sessions on Wednesday, in which Trump said he was “unbelievably impressed” with Sessions. The senator, to say the least, is a controversial choice to run the Justice Department, as he has been publicly accused of racially charged comments and actions as far back as the 1980s.

“The last person women and families need in this job is someone who has repeatedly given a pass to individuals who commit acts of violence against abortion clinics, doesn’t take sexual assault seriously, and was determined to be too racist by a GOP-led Senate to become a federal judge,” NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue said in a statement Friday. “But that’s who Jeff Sessions is. His record of misogyny and racism makes him unfit to be the country’s top lawyer. The American people deserve far better, but with Donald Trump at the helm, we know we won’t get it.”

Hogue specifically blasted Sessions’ “long anti-choice record,” as well as his defense of Trump’s notorious “grab them by the pussy” moment.
ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero chimed in Friday with his own statement about Trump’s choice. “As a matter of organizational policy, the American Civil Liberties Union does not take a position supporting or opposing presidential or judicial nominations,” the statement read.

“We do, however, educate the American people and the Congress about nominees’ records and past positions.” Sessions has, Romero said, “called the ACLU un-American and communist, assertions we flatly reject.” Romero continued, “His positions on LGBT rights, capital punishment, abortion rights, and presidential authority in times of war have been contested by the ACLU and other civil-rights organizations. As the nation’s highest-ranking law enforcement official, the attorney general is charged with protecting the rights of all Americans.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/201 ... ce=copyurl

[b]On edit: Similar to Jews like Dershowitz and Adelson overlooking the slime bag Bannon as they focus support for Israel,
there is a black voice for Sessions. She is an academic and has her own take on race and Islam as well. I expect we'll
hear more about her as the Sessions post for AG is debated.

[b]Carol Miller Swain
(born March 7, 1954)[1][5] is an American political scientist, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, and former television host. She is the author or editor of six books. Her scholarly work has been cited by two Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Her fields are race relations, immigration, representation, evangelical politics, and the United States Constitution. Her views on race and Islam have attracted national attention in the media.

snip* Views on Islam
[/b][/b]
On January 16, 2015, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shooting, Swain, a self-professed Christian,[71] wrote an op ed criticizing Islam in The Tennessean.[72][73] She argued:
Islam is not like other religions in the United States[;] it poses an absolute danger to us and our children unless it is monitored. . . . If America is to be safe, it must . . . institute serious monitoring of Islamic organizations.
— Carol M. Swain, The Tennessean (January 16, 2015)[72]

Shortly after, Vanderbilt students held a protest,[74] accusing Swain of engaging in "hate speech"[75] while promising that further protests would be held unless the University implements a policy to "promise its students protection from being attacked by faculty members."[73][76][77]
in full:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_M._Swain
0

User avatar
Posted by Henry_
  10,973 19 Nov 2016, 11:06 am

Henry_ User avatar
      
      

Posts: 8,502
Progressive Progressive political affiliation
Politics: Progressive
Money: 10,973.32

* Standard operating procedure when attacking anyone who has ever urged restraint regarding Israeli policy:


Anti-Semitic Mud Thrown at Rep. Keith Ellison to Counter Attacks on Steve Bannon


America's first Muslim congressman is the leading contender to head the Democratic Party, and a dream target for Trump supporters and the alt-right
Allison Kaplan Sommer Nov 18, 2016 7:44 PM
Rep. Keith Ellison is, in many ways, the perfect person to spearhead the Democratic Party as it prepares to lead the charge against President-elect Donald...
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-e ... m-1.753928
0

User avatar
Posted by Henry_
  10,973 19 Nov 2016, 11:14 am

Henry_ User avatar
      
      

Posts: 8,502
Progressive Progressive political affiliation
Politics: Progressive
Money: 10,973.32

November 17, 2016
Trump Justice Department May Halt Police Reform Efforts Nationwide
The new administration's hostility to police accountability on the campaign trail could translate into a passive if not openly anti-reform stance says advocates

TAYA GRAHAM, TRNN: This is Taya Graham and Stephen Janis reporting for the Real News Network in Baltimore City, Maryland.

The repercussions for the election of Donald Trump are still being sorted out but here in Baltimore there’s concern about anticipated changes in the Department of Justice. That’s because the Department of Justice issued a scathing report on the Baltimore City police department. An analysis that outlined unconstitutional and racist tactics which give reformers hope change would finally occur. But that hope has turned to fear. Both local leaders and advocates told there Real News they’re concerned that Trump’s election could effect not just the future investigations of police departments but the form and function of a not yet negotiated consent decree with the city that’s supposed to ensure tangible change takes place.

I’m here with Stephen Janis, reporter for the Real News Network. Stephen can you tell me how important the Department of Justice is in relation to police reform?

STEPHEN JANIS, TRNN: Well as you can see in a city like Baltimore, there’s practically no reform and there was no one really critiquing the department to the extent that the Justice Department did. This has been crucial in cities across the country like Cleveland, like Los Angeles in terms of stimulating real reform because it’s basically the local government is incapable of doing the kind of analysis they did. So really the Justice Department is crucial as we’ll see in our interview with David Rocah from the ACLU.


He talks about how under different administrations there’s been a different level of police department investigations. But just Baltimore as an example, until the Justice Department document came out that was really as you pointed out, scathing, not much was done.JANIS: Stephen, we talked to several stake holders about their concerns. Were there any themes that emerged. Well we talked to David Rocah from the ACLU.

We talked to Brandon Scott, the Vice-Chair for the City Council’s Public Safety Committee and we talked to state delegate Joe Carter who of course has been one of the few police reform activists in the state who really has been touting police reform really fore years before any of this happened and things occurred. The one emerging theme was what is our backstop now? I mean because really the dialogue about reform in Maryland only really got serious after of course the uprising. But even more serious once the Department of Justice came in and issued this report. You know it was only the Department of Justice who would really sort of identify the true structural problems. If you read the report, it’s endemic. They go through it 160 pages. But now all of the people who we talked to said that might not exist anymore.


GRAHAM: Finally after a year long investigation into the firing of chief Sewell, Pocomoke city’s first African American police chief, the Department of Justice has actually gotten involved. Do you think Trump’s election could effect that at all?

JANIS: That again, is the same problem. Right now the Department of Justice is asking to intervene in Pocomoke. Remember in Pocomoke they fired their first black police chief Kelvin Sewell. Sewell claimed it was because he refused to fire two black officers who had filed a discrimination complaint. He filed a discrimination lawsuit and has since been indicted. So really it’s crucial that the Justice Department step in and say you know what, these allegations are real.


GRAHAM: Didn’t it sort of actually validate their allegations of racism that were also sustained by the EEOC.

JANIS: Yes as a matter of fact, the Justice Department has asked for changes to the structure of governance there to make up for the fact that they believe that discrimination has occurred there. So if a Justice Department is headed by someone who really thinks – by a president who has made the kind of racial statements, racialized statements, appointed someone from Breitbart which is like Alt-right kind of organization. One can really imagine that you’d have a situation where the Justice Department would not be that interested in intervening in the case or maybe sort of drag their feet or sort of play dead in this kind of situation or even make things more difficult. The Justice Department’s going to be taken over by the Trump administration and there have been a lot of progress made by having investigations of police departments. What concerns do you have about, you and the ongoing Baltimore investigation with the new administration?

JILL P. CARTER: Well I think it’s a blow. Because I think we were on a path to making some progress and now this could completely deter it. I talked to some people who think oh it’s a waste of time to even pursue it now. I don’t take that position at all. I think that the Justice Department made some scathing findings that still need to be addressed to matter what administration is in place. I also think it’s important because they began the process of compiling necessary data. So even if the Justice Department decides not to file a lawsuit, that would not preclude other people from doing it and there have been successful lawsuits that many people know, including the Hopson lawsuit when there was in fact a republican in the White House. So, I don’t throw my hands up in the air and say no because right is right and we have to still push the word that.

JANIS: Do you have any plans for any sort of reform legislation in the upcoming session that you want to discuss now? Or if you don’t want to but just anything?

CARTER: I don’t have any plans for any kind of reform legislation. I mean a lot of other legislatures are now finally giving service to the idea of bail reform and that’s an issue that me and some others have been pushing for a long time and now maybe there’s some traction for it now that the attorney general and judge Morrison have weighed in saying that this is an issue and it needs to be addressed that money bail could feasibly be unconstitutional for [inaud.] poor defendants. I think that that will get some traction or I hope it will so I will just be willing to support nay legislation like that. But they need to go further. Like they’re still unnecessarily arresting people whether they’re held on bail or not, for various small and minor offenses or offenses that really – or cases that really don’t warrant it. There are still people being arrested for cases where there’s lack of probable cause.


JANIS: So you’re still seeing almost a zero tolerance style?

CARTER: I wouldn’t go that far, no. I think that what I see, there’s from what I hear also from talking to other attorneys that are always working inside central booking, they say that most of the arrests are based on a warrant so police are going out and looking for people for old warrants and then maybe finding some additional charges to throw in. But very few fresh new arrests observing new crime taking place and making fresh arrests.

remainder: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?opt ... ival=17727
0


PreviousNext

Return to Liberals Only Political Chat Room

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

Who has visited this topic