MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Guess it was an unavoidable side effect of poverty and mass migration, but still horrifying and shameful.
Comments
Horrifying, shameful, and at least partly attributable to the Clinton/Obama decision to depose Gaddafi. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/riley-waggaman/hillary-clinton-turned-nat...
by HSG on Fri, 12/15/2017 - 9:24am
Why is it Hillary/Obama and not Obama?
I think Amnesty International places blame on Europe for the slave trade.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/12/14/angry-about-the-slave-trade-in-libya-spare-some-anger-for-europe/?utm_term=.23df9265829a
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/15/2017 - 10:13am
"Since
the Arab Spring uprising of 2011[Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama] ended the brutal rule of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Libya’s coast has became a hub for human trafficking and smuggling. That has fueled the illegal migration crisis that Europe has been scrambling to contain since 2014."https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/19/world/africa/libya-migrants-slavery.html
Also see Africans are being sold at Libyan slave markets. Thanks, Hillary Clinton in USA Today by conservative Glenn Harlan Reynolds and Media erase NATO Role in Bringing Slave Markets to Libya by progressive Ben Norton. Norton notes:
by HSG on Fri, 12/15/2017 - 12:51pm
Obama is not President. Hillary is not President. The guy in the White House calls CNN International, the media source that originally reported the story, “fake news”. The Libyan government used that statement to refute the idea that slavery was occurring in Libya.
http://fortune.com/2017/11/29/libya-slave-trade/
Railing about Obama and Hillary is worthless. If you want something done, tell Nikki Haley to get off her behind. Tell Cheeto to shut up. Donate to organizations that are trying to stop the carnage.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/15/2017 - 1:12pm
You asked me why I blamed Hillary and Obama. I told you. Now you say it's time to move on. Fine I agree. Let's move on by figuring out how do we can avoid repeating the mistakes that led to the nomination of warmonger Hillary Clinton in 2016?
by HSG on Fri, 12/15/2017 - 1:23pm
Your analysis is simplistic. You write as if America is the only country on earth that makes decisions and determines when and what countries choose to go to war. And that Hillary is the one that determines America's foreign policy. Europe, especially France, drove the push to intervene in Libya. America followed along. Hillary's argument was that France and Europe was going to intervene regardless of US policy and for America to have any influence on the war and it's aftermath the US had to be a part of it. Hillary never led the initial push to war though she did push the Obama administration to join that effort once France and other European countries had decided to intervene.
The US has the biggest influence but other countries have national interests and historical reasons to pursue foreign policy independent of the US. We can't always stop them if we disagree nor can we force them to join us when they disagree. France is involved in wars in several countries in Africa most of which America has little to no involvement.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 12/15/2017 - 3:53pm
"We came we saw he died."
by HSG on Fri, 12/15/2017 - 4:40pm
Your bull shit is incessant. That Hillary might have gloated after Qaddafi died doesn't address anything about how or why the conflict started.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 12/15/2017 - 5:28pm
Hillary said: "We came, we saw, he died." She didn't say: "The French and other NATO forces came, etc."
by HSG on Fri, 12/15/2017 - 6:17pm
Yet the French, British, and Canadian air force were also there providing air support, flying sorties over Libya, and launching cruise missiles from ships and submarines. So either Hillary misspoke or your thinking is too infantile to understand what was said.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 12/15/2017 - 8:05pm
Do you think the French, British, and Canadian forces would have been there if we had urged them to stay home? In any case, does the fact that a bank robber has several accomplices mean that he's not responsible for the robbery? N.B. - I can respond to your insulting posts without insulting you. I ask you politely to afford me the same minimal consideration.
by HSG on Sat, 12/16/2017 - 9:50am
No Hal, you can't respond because it's clear you don't know anything about the run up to the intervention in Libya. That's why you're trying to divert the conversation to Hillary gloating after Qaddafi was killed. Which again tells us nothing about how or why the intervention happened. You choose that meaningless quote because you think it's an insult that reflects poorly on Hillary. You think it will effectively divert me from the serious points I made because the insult will goad me into defending her.
Yes I do think France would have intervened in Libya and likely the British even if the US hadn't been involved. They made it clear they intended to. Just as France intervened in the Mali civil war in 2013 without the US. And to a much greater degree than the coalition intervened in Libya. France actually put troops on the ground in Mali. It wasn't just air support. They were later aided by the British and the Canadian air force again still without the US joining them.
Once again the US isn't the only nation on earth that pursues an independent foreign policy. Like too many Americans you're myopically focused on what we do without knowing or considering that other nations like France, Germany, and Britain have large armies, navies, an air force with high tech equipment equal to our own. They have foreign policy goals that don't always coincide with ours. They act independently and even use their military independent of US involvement.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 12/16/2017 - 3:21pm
Hal is as obsessive hater of the Clintons, as anyone on the right. He sees everything through the lens of "this is Hillary's (or Bills) fault."
Bernie is out working to educate the Trump base about how they have been conned by Republicans, to enrich the wealthy.
Hal is rehashing the UN Security Council approved intervention against a murderous dictator in Libya, 6 years ago.
Does Hal's concern for the people of Libya extend using them to bash Hillary? Did his support of Bernie extend beyond his use for job one, bashing Hillary....?
Note to Hal, this is 2017. Trump wants to vastly increase military spending, is liquidating the State Department, is threatening new wars, is shrinking national monuments, opening the Arctic Refuge for oil drilling, and the GOP is increasing income/wealth disparity by trillions. Your guy Bernie is irate about it..... you.... still bashing Hillary...
by NCD on Sat, 12/16/2017 - 6:01pm
Rather than focus on me and what I am or am not why don't you simply set forth the statements that I have made with which you disagree and then present the facts that you believe disprove my positions?
by HSG on Sat, 12/16/2017 - 7:17pm
So you claim that I can't respond without insulting you - perhaps you can quote one personal insult that I have leveled against you akin to the two that you have presented in this thread alone": "your bullshit" and "your analysis is infintile".
Regarding your contention that the UK and France would have bombed Libya into submission and set Gaddafi up to be brutally murdered even if we had urged them not to, I strongly disagree.
Regardless, if the UK and France had bombed Libya into submission and set Gaddafi up to be brutally murdered over the strong objections of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the latter two would not bear responsibility for the ensuing forseeable disastrous consequences. But since Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supported the "mission" they are like David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy also responsible for the ensuing forseeable disastrous consequences.
by HSG on Sat, 12/16/2017 - 7:25pm
First you attempt to divert the topic with nonsense then you attempt to discount my post with straw men. Nothing you posted is anything I've said. You're the one who has blamed the Libya intervention on Hillary and Obama. I've placed the blame where it laid. Mainly France with Britain as the major countries pushing for it. Hillary following along after they made their decision and then pushing Obama to join. French support at 66% was 20 points more supportive of the war than America. It was a popular move in France. A majority of the British supported the intervention.
History can't be replayed so while we can never know what France would have done had the US not joined the coalition they were vocal in their determination to intervene. Their invasion in Mali just two years later without the US or British support is strong evidence they were willing to proceed alone. You can strongly disagree but you need at least a little evidence to back up that opinion and to counter my evidence. You have none.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 12/16/2017 - 8:30pm
From Salon:
Why at every point do you go to the mattresses for this incompetent unprincipled person?
by HSG on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 8:52am
Straight from the Washington Times, awesome. So you trust Seif Gaddhafi's word over Hillary's and Al Jazeera's. reporting. No surprise here. Dennis Kucinich? well, you know how to pick 'em. Meanwhile, The HIll analyzed the White House's liimited response, likening it to Gulf War I. But Robert Gates had a book to sell, and while not offering how he'd do it - that'd be too tuff for a lifetime diplomat - he can sure say what others do wrong - including Joe Biden, by the way - do you have tough words for Uncle Joe, or are you part of the fawning bunch? And no, I wasn't too thrilled with Obama's fairly spineless continuation of Bush's wars. But that was his choice, not some underling's. But even though Hillary wasn't even allowed to pick your own Deputy Secretary of State, and even though Richard Holbrooke was then sidelined, Hillary is treated as being co-president, even overriding Obama's calm cool lead to get her warhawk desires.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 10:07am
Given where we are today, do you think we are better off with Donald Trump than with Hillar? Most American voters wanted Hillary as President.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/15/2017 - 4:07pm
Trump is even worse than Hillary would have been.
by HSG on Fri, 12/15/2017 - 4:38pm
Neoprogressives like Hal don't talk about Trump (unless forced to) because they prefer lecturing anyone they deem impure that they were right all along. "Whatabout Hillary Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs...and the obvious shooting war with Russia if elected?"
by NCD on Fri, 12/15/2017 - 4:42pm
Sanders could have tried to repair his image in the black community. Repairing his image was t important because black people are not important. He repeatedly does outreach in the white community. That failure to connect speaks volumes.
Sanders criticized identity politics and had many fellow travelers in the Democratic Party. We now see that those targets of identity politics are the reason Democrats win. When blacks suggested they would stay home, they were told to stop whining. Blacks were told to beg Democratic leadership for some crumbs. If Democrats ignored the lack of enthusiasm in the black community, Democrats would have lost. BlackPAC knocked on the doors of black people in Virginia who were threatening not to vote. As a result, Northam won. There was money spent by Democrats in the black community in Alabama. Doug Jones won. Now that more focus on black outreach is discussed, we are told not to ignore whites. White outreach is good. Black outreach is theft from white voters. This nonsense has to stop. Black outreach brings victory.
We have our coalition, it is blacks, Latinos, Asians, whites, and LGBTQ. People have moved on. Hal is stuck in the past. New faces are popping up.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/15/2017 - 5:28pm
Which policies do you think the Democratic Party should promote in order to improve black lives and attract more black votes? Are they different from the ones that Bernie supports?
by HSG on Fri, 12/15/2017 - 6:23pm
Bernie doesn’t speak to the black community.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/15/2017 - 6:43pm
I understand that's your position. Which policies do you want to see Democrats promote and campaign on and are they different from the ones that Bernie supports?
by HSG on Fri, 12/15/2017 - 7:09pm
Bernie is not speaking to the black community, so his policies don’t matter. We have had this discussion 384 times before.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 12/16/2017 - 10:31am
Again, as I just said elsewhere on another thread, I see Hal asking you: what would "the black community," in your mind, like to see Bernie say? And you don't answer it. And that's why you've had the discussion 384 times.
by artappraiser on Sat, 12/16/2017 - 10:55am
Neither you or Hal seem capable of reading. The party platform addresses voter suppression, Civil Rights, the wealth gap, etc.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 12/16/2017 - 11:33pm
But the Party seems ti have left blacks behind (not just Bernie). So what do *you* think needs to be there.
[and telling AA she can't read is rather absurd - note half of the news content linked here for our enjoyment]
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/16/2017 - 11:54pm
[Response shoved to bottom - admin]
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 12:21am
I actually asked you what policies you would like to see Democrats promote to the black community. You have said repeatedly you want Democrats to reach out to your community. Okay, I agree they need to do this. What do you want them to say to you?
by HSG on Sat, 12/16/2017 - 11:00am
Neither you or AA seem capable of reading. The party platform addresses voter suppression, Civil Rights, the wealth gap, etc.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 12/16/2017 - 11:36pm
I have explained repeatedly why I address the responsibility of establishment Democrats for the election of a neo-fascist and corporate control of our nation. Is there some reason that you never discuss the corruption that is endemic to the Democratic Party and evince anger at those who do?
by HSG on Fri, 12/15/2017 - 6:21pm
Do you think that the country is in peril as you type? Do you think that the GOP represents the immediate threat? Why are you ignoring the threat?
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/15/2017 - 6:47pm
I'm not ignoring the threat at all. Indeed, I have linked to published opinion pieces that set forth that I do believe GOP policies represent an immediate threat. The reason that they are in a position to do so much harm is because Democrats have forsaken poor, working, and middle-class Americans. What policies do you think the Democrats need to promote in order to regain their trust and to gain their support? Are they different from the ones Bernie supports?
by HSG on Fri, 12/15/2017 - 7:12pm
You say that Democrats abandoned the poor, working, and middle-class Americans. Why then, did we see a surge in African-American voters? Blacks lost heavily in the housing crisis, yet they strongly supported the Democratic Party. They responded to BlackPAC and other activists. Blacks responded to the Democratic message.
Why are white voters willing to vote for pedophiles and racists? Why are you using economics to excuse racist voting patterns by white voters? You want to blame Democrats for white racism. You express on ern only for white voters. Bernie Sanders condemns identity politics as a dog-whistle to white voters.
You keep asking about policies. I provided you the platform with sections on Civil Rights, police abuse, the wealth gap, etc. You continue to ask for policies.
Why do you shill for white voters who have no problems voting for racists like Trump, Gillespie, and Moore?
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 12:07am
We did not see a surge in African-American voters in 2016. In AL 2017, the African-American vote was mobilized for a number of reasons, including more outreach both by Democrats and respected figures in Alabama's African-American community - e.g., Charles Barkley. In addition, the Republican nominee was more explicitly nostalgic for slavery than other AL Republicans have been in recent times. Plus, Doug Jones had a long and strong record of support for civil rights and he prosecuted the Birmingham KKK church bombers. This also helped drive black turnout in Alabama.
My sense from questions like "why are white voters willing to vote for pedophiles and racists" that you believe that whites are innately less human than blacks. Is this true? If so, how would you suggest that we deal with this problem?
My belief is that people of all races, religions, and ethnicities can be and often are manipulated by demagogues and hustlers. We can best deal with this by speaking to each other as honestly as we can about our shared problems and try to come up with real solutions to them.
I have not asked you to set forth the policies that you believe the Democratic Party should promote since you identified the Democratic Party platform of 2016 as that which you want Democrats to campaign on.
You write "why do you shill for white voters who have no problems voting or racists like Trump, Gillespie, and Moore?" I don't shill for anybody. But I can see why you might think I do. I choose to view these voters as real human beings with real problems - often very serious ones - and interests in common with the interests of people of color. I also believe that they some of them can be and often are reached by progressive candidates promoting true economic populism. From what you've written, it seems clear to me that you have chosen to view these people as unregenerate monsters who deserve, along with their children only unrelenting poverty and misery.
Indeed your bitterness at the white working class - which like millions of people of color is also a victim of the billionaire class - has blinded you to the very real damage that shills like the Clintons have done to the people for whom you claim to speak in every one of your posts.
by HSG on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 8:43am
We verify that you are stuck in 2016, You lead off with the situation in 2016. This is 2017. In 2017, there is an outreach program in the black community in 2017. The surge in black votes occurred in 2017 in response to outreach. Blacks suffered job losses and loss of housing. Blacks still vote overwhelmingly for Democrats because Republicans Support policies that harm black communities. You cannot understand that blacks do not see the Republicans as a viable alternative. Whites are willing to vote against their own interests. The tax pla n will hurt poor and middle class whites. Trump won the votes of whites at all economic, age, and genders.
When I point out that whites vote for pedophiles and racists, you complain that I am maligning those whites. Yes, I am maligning those whites. I malign them because they are willing to vote for racists. I once again refer to Martin Luther King Jr. who openly criticized whites who were slated to vote for Barry Goldwater. King said that people of good conscience could not vote for Goldwater. I believe that people of good conscience cannot vote for racists and race-baiters like Trump, Gillespie, and Moore.
Trump got 57% of the white vote. Hillary got 37% of the white vote. Hillary got 89% of the black vote, Trump got 8%.
In Virginia, 57% of whites voted for Gillespie. 87% of blacks voted for Northam
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/local/virginia-politics/governor-exit-polls/?utm_term=.3502e279ec80
In Alabama, 68% of whites voted for Roy Moore. 96% of blacks voted for Doug Jones.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/alabama-exit-polls/?utm_term=.05ad04221bfe
Those are the numbers based on exit polls.
Here is what King said about the GOP and those who would vote for Barry Goldwater.
https://thinkprogress.org/no-martin-luther-king-jr-was-not-a-republican-but-heres-what-he-had-to-say-about-them-9c29475ef37/
We are in the same situation today. You cab try to divert by saying I’m bashing people, but those people are voting for racists. I don’t wish them any physical harm, I’m calling for blacks to come out to cancel the votes of people who would vote for racists.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 11:11am
You don't just malign whites who vote for Trump and Republicans. You malign the entire white working class and you repeatedly argue that they are so unredeemable that the Democratic Party shouldn't even try to reach out to them.
You attack me for being mired in the past because I pointed out that black votes were down in 2016 despite the fact that the Barack Obama Democratic Party, you claim, did all these great things for African Americans. Yet you quote Dr. King from 1964.
I agree with you as I have said repeatedly that Democrats have not been quite as bad for working people as Republicans. But they need to be much better to win consistently. In 1964, they were and they won.
by HSG on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 12:49pm
I don't recall rmrd saying Obama had done such wonderful things, and how can Dems help the Working Class (tm) when they keep voting in Republicans that vote against their interests??
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 12:55pm
I miswrote in claiming that RMRD argued that Obama had done wonderful things for African Americans. Our elected representatives should be working for all their constituents even those who don't vote for them. Democrats have had real power on various occasions since 1993 and have done some good things for poor, working, and middle-class Americans but on balance have not.
by HSG on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 5:01pm
Hal, the whites who stood by during Jim. Row were not good people. The whites who are standing by Trump, Gillespie, and Moore are not good people. The 20% of black voters who voted against Gay Rights and for GW Bush were not good people. The 17% of black males who voted for Ed Gillespie in Virginia were not good people. Omarosa is not a good person. Huckabee-Sanders is not a good person.
I quote Dr. King because his words apply to the Donald Trump and the current GOP. People of good conscience can not vote for Republicans. How does that differ from King’s position. King urged every person of good conscience not to vote for Goldwater or Republicans who sided with him.
Black voters are pragmatic. Democrats are the lesser evil. Sanders shows no interest in the black community. Republicans are enemies of the black community.
I give a link to Shaun King a Bernie supporter who was appalled when the so-called Progressive, Bernie supported candidate came in fifth in the race for the Atlanta Mayor. The Progressives were ready to urge defeat of the Democratic candidate to punish her for not being Progressive enough. They would be OK with the Conservative Republican winning. I doubt that you took time to read the linked article I provided.
We have a coalition that includes whites. Viola Liuzzo was a hero. The white folks who were silent during Jim Crow, not so much. White folks who are voting for the GOP have to be outvoted at the polls.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 1:15pm
Here's the meat of what you wrote in my opinion:
"I quote Dr. King because his words apply to the Donald Trump and the current GOP. People of good conscience can not vote for Republicans. How does that differ from King’s position. King urged every person of good conscience not to vote for Goldwater or Republicans who sided with him."
Now I agree with you that it was unconscionable to vote for Trump in the general elecion. But I feel the same way about those who voted for Hillary over Bernie in the primaries. I believe the differences between the actual records and campaigns of the two candidates were so great that there was no way one could vote for Hillary in good conscience. But even though I think it was unconscionable to vote for Hillary over Bernie I don't think all who did so are evil people or unredeemable. I keep trying to reach the Hillary voters because I believe they are on balance rational people who care about our country and that they can be persuaded if shown that their best interests lie with genuine progressive populists not neoliberal militarists.
Likewise, I recognize that you and many others here have diametrically opposing views. You may think it was unconscionable for me to vote for Bernie over Hillary or at least incomprehensible. Still, I read closely what you write as I do read closely those here who supported Hillary and who attacked Bernie whenever possible. I believe that you and they may at any time make good arguments based on evidence that will cause me to reconsider my positions.
I note that Dr. King felt exactly the same way. He kept trying to reach people who didn't necessarily agree with him on racial equality.
by HSG on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 5:14pm
MLK “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”
https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
MLK Jr. did not sugarcoat things to win white converts.
The racism that remains in the country cannot be ignored. Economics does not explain the white vote for Trump. This is one reason Sanders’ words fall on deaf ears in the black community. He is Johnny One Note. He only sees economics and then complains about identity politics. Sanders, for the most part, ignores race, King did not.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/white-working-class-trump-cultural-anxiety/525771/
People are supposed to feel uncomfortable when discussing race. If it feels comfortable, we aren’t doing it right. Moderates are not helpful.
https://goodmenproject.com/social-justice-2/letter-white-moderate/
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 6:49pm
Are there policies that Bernie espouses with which you disagree?
by HSG on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 9:05pm
You are in such a bubble that you have paid no attention to what I have repeatedly said about Bernie Sanders and the black community. I am not going to continue this line of conversation because you are not serious.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 9:25pm
Hal, by this time you should realize w/o Russian interference, illegal money laundering, vote suppression, etc. that Hillary would have gotten 60% of the vote. She argued her points, she didn't say "let's go to war" or "build a wall", all her positions were close to Bernie's aside from fracking and a TPP proposal that China sent dirty money to block that's been adopted *without* us.
You're not MLK defending rights - you're a whiner and a dog with a bone who won't give up even though you lost fair and square. You and Bernie lost - start your own party if you can't deal with life's normal ups and downs.
Otherwise, take life's lumps and adapt your politics to what *the people* said they wanted w/o the Russian lies and disinfo..
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 12/18/2017 - 2:58am
Question: Russia influenced Republicans, black male voters, Jill Stein fans, possible Hillary voters, midwest and southern less educated whites, Hispanics, FBI, local officials to stop liberal-leaning voters, etc.
How much did Russia influence Bernie fans? How many of those unmarked $27 donations came from Russia? That DNC database - did Russia hack it and leave it open? How much pro-Bernie anti-Hillary Facebook and Twitter and Reddit traffic was generated by Russian sources? How many pro-Bernie gatherings were helped by Russian agitators?
Do you have any concern that you were duped by Russians? Lulu insisted Russia had nothing to do with MH17 - now we have audio of the Russian ex-general giving the order. Lulu seems long gone now. Where do you stand on the 800 pound Bear in the room?
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 12/18/2017 - 3:07am
Bernie is Hal's throwaway tool to destroy the Democratic Party: "The worldviews of the pro-Clinton and pro-Sanders supporters are simply incompatible."
Unlike Bernie, Hal hasn't expended an iota of interest or effort in stopping the GOP's radical agenda, which subverts every principle and issue Hal feigns are of crucial importance to him.
by NCD on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 7:02pm
This website is about making intellectual political arguments. If you disagree with my arguments, set forth the evidence on which you rely. Your ad hominem arguments only serve to suggest you have neither evidence nor logic your side.
by HSG on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 9:09pm
I wish that was how it worked Hal but you never do that. You haven't addressed a single argument I've made in this thread and you've distorted every sentence I've posted. It was the same the last time we talked. You didn't address a single argument I made against single payer. I no longer expect to have an intellectual discussion or debate with you. Those days are long gone. I only post to you to push back against your views.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 10:11pm
Bernie is fighting the Republicans destruction of our democracy by exposing their lies and attacks on the middle class and poor Hal. Why don't you help him?
Your every post attacking Democrats, and even by your own admission, "The war for the party’s soul will continue to the great benefit of Republicans", you aid the GOP cause.
The intellectual point is ceaseless, unending divisiveness within the Party will not promote the causes you have claimed to value, which you actually acknowledge, but take no heed of.
by NCD on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 11:01pm
Let's move on by figuring out how do we can avoid repeating the mistakes that led to the nomination of warmonger Hillary Clinton in 2016?
I think if Dems ever nominate someone far less hawkish than Obama or either Clinton again, that would be make it a pretty sure thing that they wouldn't win. Especially not if they are also advocating re-distributive taxation of some kind. The two of those together make for a sure loser in a presidential race, turns off too many.
Take any regularly left of center demographic and you will find a significant number of hawks among them. For example, Afro-Americans are often pro-military veterans.
There's only one way I think it might be possible: if the candidate attacks the money spent on the military-industrial complex, and says it should be more strictly budgeted so that money can go instead to an area that is equally job promoting as the MIC, such as infrastructure or education or scientific development ("New Deal" style.)
But that still wouldn't apply to a case like Libya, where it's a coalition with other countries paying their fair share. Peacenik isolationism just doesn't sell to enough people. Got no links and not going to bother searching for them, just take it as the opinion of someone who has watched polls on this for a very long time, and watched warriors against the military-industrial complex become very popular (like Senator Proxmire.) I do suspect a significant number resent how big a piece of the pie the Pentagon gets. But they still like the U.S. not just participating in an international coalition, but leading one, against "the bad guys," whoever they may be. Look for example, how popular the first Gulf War was. It's unilateral stuff that is always far more shaky. Lots of Americans don't trust U.S. leadership on unilateral since Vietnam and Iraq II hasn't made that better, they want to see at least a few other countries vote yeah on it, too.
When Obama said joining in to help the Libyans was a "no brainer", I'm pretty sure more than a look or two at polls was a big part of that. The media had set up the whole thing with the dramatic coverage. Plus Gaddafi had a bad guy rep with the U.S. population for decades, sort of like the original terrorist.
by artappraiser on Fri, 12/15/2017 - 9:29pm
AA - what you write here jibes with the conventional wisdom but is not borne out by the facts. As I pointed out in earlier piece, a reputable study concluded Hillary's hawkishness may have cost her crucial votes in Wisconsin and Michigan. Likewise, her anti-American worker position on trade and the millions she and hubby raked in from investment banks played very poorly in Peoria. Regarding African-Americans, they and Hispanics disagree with her unalloyed support for the Netanyahu regime.
by HSG on Sat, 12/16/2017 - 10:03am
Israel has been a difficult issue as to American politics since it was founded. It's like immigration, doesn't split along traditional Dem/Rep. or liberal/conservative lines. As to pure cynical political effects, If you throw it into your hawkishness argument, you are just going to get trouble. Mho. Example: Howard Dean in the presidential race knew he was in trouble even trying nuance, walked it back. Sure, a significant part of left of center doesn't like strong support of Israel now (wasn't always true, used to be that many American "commies" were zionists) but there's not enough of them. Not only that, I believe that most people who run for national office in their heart of hearts think strong support of Israel while attempting to change her policies is the smart thing for the U.S. It's not just the influence of "the lobby," many who are savvy about international policy believe it, too. And there's a significant bonus to that: the majority of the public feels that way, too. And: those that are passionately anti-Israel will usually sell out that for someone who is going to push leftist economics, the Palestinians are important to them, but not that important. While Israel is very important to a lot of American Jews who are on the left about nearly everything else.
by artappraiser on Sat, 12/16/2017 - 10:32am
Good piece on Dean. Starts ti make you respect *anyone* who survives more than 5 mins in the big tent.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/16/2017 - 11:11pm
From the Democratic Party platform
Ending Systemic Racism
Democrats will fight to end institutional and systemic racism in our society. We will challenge and dismantle the structures that define lasting racial, economic, political, and social inequity. Democrats will promote racial justice through fair, just, and equitable governing of all public-serving institutions and in the formation of public policy. Democrats support removing the Confederate battle flag from public properties, recognizing that it is a symbol of our nation's racist past that has no place in our present or our future. We will push for a societal transformation to make it clear that black lives matter and that there is no place for racism in our country.
Closing the Racial Wealth Gap
America’s economic inequality problem is even more pronounced when it comes to racial and ethnic disparities in wealth and income. It is unacceptable that the median wealth for African Americans and Latino Americans is roughly one-tenth that of white Americans. These disparities are also stark for American Indians and certain Asian American subgroups, and may become even more significant when considering other characteristics such as age, disability status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
The racial wealth and income gaps are the result of policies that discriminate against people of color and constrain their ability to earn income and build assets to the same extent as other Americans. It has accumulated over time and is made worse by ongoing policies and practices. For example, African Americans and Latinos lost more than half of their net worth as a result of the housing crisis and the Great Recession, because they lost jobs at a much faster rate than white workers and because they were disproportionately targeted for subprime, predatory, and fraudulent mortgages during the run-up to the housing crisis.
Democrats believe it is long past time to close this racial wealth gap. Disparities in wealth cannot be solved by the free market alone, but instead, the federal government must play a role in eliminating systemic barriers to wealth accumulation for different racial groups and improving opportunities for people from all racial and ethnic backgrounds to build wealth. Federal policies must remove barriers to achieving sustainable homeownership, provide for greater diversity in federal and state contracting practices, incentivize and expand access to retirement investment programs, increase opportunities for quality jobs and education, and challenge the deeply rooted structures that perpetuate and exacerbate current disparities and ultimately stagnate the nation’s economic growth and security.
Reforming our Criminal Justice System
Democrats are committed to reforming our criminal justice system and ending mass incarceration. Something is profoundly wrong when almost a quarter of the world’s prison population is in the United States, even though our country has less than five percent of the world’s population. We will reform mandatory minimum sentences and close private prisons and detention centers. Research and evidence, rather than slogans and sound bites, must guide criminal justice policies.
We will rebuild the bonds of trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve. Across the country, there are police officers inspiring trust and confidence, honorably doing their duty, deploying creative and effective strategies, and demonstrating that it is possible to prevent crime without relying on unnecessary force. They deserve our respect and support, and we should learn from those examples and build on what works.
We will work with police chiefs to invest in training for officers on issues such as de-escalation and the creation of national guidelines for the appropriate use of force. We will encourage better police-community relations, require the use of body cameras, and stop the use of weapons of war that have no place in our communities. We will end racial profiling that targets individuals solely on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin, which is un-American and counterproductive. We should report national data on policing strategies and provide greater transparency and accountability. We will require the Department of Justice to investigate all questionable or suspicious police-involved shootings, and we will support states and localities who help make those investigations and prosecutions more transparent, including through reforming the grand jury process. We will assist states in providing a system of public defense that is adequately resourced and which meets American Bar Association standards. And we will reform the civil asset forfeiture system to protect people and remove perverse incentives for law enforcement to “police for a profit.”
Instead of investing in more jails and incarceration, we need to invest more in jobs and education, and end the school-to-prison pipeline. We will remove barriers to help formerly incarcerated individuals successfully re-enter society by “banning the box,” expanding reentry programs, and restoring voting rights. We think the next President should take executive action to ban the box for federal employers and contractors, so applicants have an opportunity to demonstrate their qualifications before being asked about their criminal records.
The "war on drugs" has led to the imprisonment of millions of Americans, disproportionately people of color, without reducing drug use. Whenever possible, Democrats will prioritize prevention and treatment over incarceration when tackling addiction and substance use disorder. We will build on effective models of drug courts, veterans’ courts, and other diversionary programs that seek to give nonviolent offenders opportunities for rehabilitation as opposed to incarceration.
Because of conflicting federal and state laws concerning marijuana, we encourage the federal government to remove marijuana from the list of “Schedule 1" federal controlled substances and to appropriately regulate it, providing a reasoned pathway for future legalization. We believe that the states should be laboratories of democracy on the issue of marijuana, and those states that want to decriminalize it or provide access to medical marijuana should be able to do so. We support policies that will allow more research on marijuana, as well as reforming our laws to allow legal marijuana businesses to exist without uncertainty. And we recognize our current marijuana laws have had an unacceptable disparate impact in terms of arrest rates for African Americans that far outstrip arrest rates for whites, despite similar usage rates.
We will abolish the death penalty, which has proven to be a cruel and unusual form of punishment. It has no place in the United States of America. The application of the death penalty is arbitrary and unjust. The cost to taxpayers far exceeds those of life imprisonment. It does not deter crime. And, exonerations show a dangerous lack of reliability for what is an irreversible punishment.
We have been inspired by the movements for criminal justice that directly address the discriminatory treatment of African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and American Indians to rebuild trust in the criminal justice system.
Guaranteeing Civil Rights
Democrats will always fight to end discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. We need to promote civility and speak out against bigotry and other forms of intolerance that have entered our political discourse. It is unacceptable to target, defame, or exclude anyone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. While freedom of expression is a fundamental constitutional principle, we must condemn hate speech that creates a fertile climate for violence. We condemn Donald Trump’s demonization of prisoners of war, women, Muslims, Mexicans, and people with disabilities; his playing coy with white supremacists; and the climate of bigotry he is creating. We also condemn the recent uptick in other forms of hate speech, like anti-Semitism and Islamophobia
Protect Voting Rights, Fix Our Campaign Finance System, and Restore Our Democracy
Democrats know that Americans’ right to vote is sacred and fundamental. We believe that we must protect Americans’ right to vote, while stopping corporations’ outsized influence in elections. We must rectify the Supreme Court decision gutting the Voting Rights Act, which is a profound injustice. We will stop efforts by Republican governors and legislatures to disenfranchise people of color, low-income people, and young people, and prevent these voters from exercising their right to vote through onerous restrictions. We will ensure that election officials comply with voting protections, including provisions mandating bilingual materials and voter assistance. And we will fight to reform our broken campaign finance system, which gives outsized influence to billionaires and big corporations. It’s time we give back control of our elections to those to whom it belongs—the American people.
Protecting Voting Rights
The Democratic Party was founded on the promise of an expanded democracy. The right to vote is at the heart of our national vision. It is a core principle of the Democratic Party to maximize voter participation for all Americans. Our democracy suffers when nearly two thirds of our citizens do not or cannot participate, as in the last midterm elections. Democrats believe we must make it easier to vote, not harder.
We must restore the full protections of the Voting Rights Act. We will bring our democracy into the 21st century by expanding early voting and vote-by-mail, implementing universal automatic voter registration and same day voter registration, ending partisan and racial gerrymandering, and making Election Day a national holiday. We will restore voting rights for those who have served their sentences. And we will continue to fight against discriminatory voter identification laws, which disproportionately burden young voters, diverse communities, people of color, low-income families, people with disabilities, the elderly, and women.
We support fully funding the Help America Vote Act and will work to fulfill the promise of election reform, including fighting to end long lines at voting booths and ensuring that all registration materials, voting materials, polling places, and voting machines are truly accessible to seniors, Americans with disabilities, and citizens with limited English proficiency. We will support local, county, and state governments in their efforts to upgrade old voting equipment and machines with modern systems, including voter-verified paper ballots, to ensure that all voters are able to exercise this sacred right in the quickest, most convenient, secure and accurate manner possible.
Republicans have enacted various voter suppression tactics from Ohio to Florida, and even though some federal courts have already found that these measures go too far, Democrats will continue to fight these laws to preserve the fundamental right to vote. We support efforts to defeat ill-motivated voter suppression tactics. We also support Ohio’s proposed Voters Bill of Rights amendment, North Carolina’s Moral Monday movement, and similar initiatives to permanently safeguard this inalienable right.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 12:35am
One theme that ties these different objectives together is the principle of equal protection under the law. From that point of view, the coalition made up by groups with different concerns have a plank that doesn't require calculating what policy benefits who the most. The plank is also the most challenging objection to the G.O.P. drive to preserve privilege in the guise of "law and order."
I get that pushing for this policy principle doesn't solve a lot of other problems that stand in the way of a more equal society. That is okay. Having a principle to stand up for that doesn't claim to repair the whole world means one can actively pursue it for its own merits and not turn it into a digestible cookie to feed everybody.
It is the G.O.P who keep framing this policy as the tool of identity politics. Why the hell should the Democratic Party keep meeting them half way on this point? One doesn't have to find the answer to all other questions to simply stop playing along with them.
/rant
by moat on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 5:41pm
I am in agreement with your position. This is not a zero sum game. Black women pushed themselves into leadership positions in the Women’s March. Black women had some issues that did not impact white women to the same degree. The coalition of women made each group more powerful. Better Together. We have a coalition that includes white voters. These voters are appalled by a guy in the White House who found good people among Neo-Nazis. A white supremacist crushed the legs of a black man and killed Heather Hyer in Charlottesville. People can’t feed me BS that those who support Trump are only motivated because they are butt hurt by their economic situation.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 6:25pm
from rmrd:
Her calling me a racist is OK? Her repeatedly mentioning black family members is OK, but if I respond with comments about my black family members I am taken to task? Go back and reread her post about Camille Paglia. She was totally blowing smoke about Paglia supporting transgenders. So Indont give her points for reading comprehension.
I provided the party platform which includes a host of issues impacting the black community. What the party needs is to have black activists in positions of power to force the party to address the issues contained in the platform. The party has actually begun to spend money with black activists organizations. More black people need to be in decision making positions in the party.
If you come down on me for questioning her reading comprehension, tell her to lay off the suggestion that I’m a racist. If she brings up her black family members, allow me to discuss mine.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 3:28am
Re family members I did it one time as it seemed we were going diwn a dumb rabbit hole.
"Come down on me" - huh? Wow, this is a real torture chamber here.
How about we start this over, I don't get it except you two for some reason rub each other wrong.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 3:34am
Re: "the Party", the Party is gutted, useless (Obama helped do that, wanting the irganizational things under his control and his campaign).
Then there was Donna Brazile, who was largely useless ( I don't say that because of supporting Bernie, but because her statements din't bely a person who knows how to wield power.
But for the Black Joe and Joetta in the street, is this what's going to get them wowed, feeling that the Party's working for them, more black faces? What will cinvince that barber that the Dem party can and will make a difference in his or his children's life? A black face in the WH didn't do it - I doubt more black faces in party admin will. Seems like another token milestone without an actual plan or strategy.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 3:41am
Sigh. Black voters are looking for change. They GOP is seen as a clear and present danger. The President is a racist. The AG is a racist who pulled back on investigations of federal violations surrounding police abuse. The new text plan is a direct assault on the black community. When BlackPAC talks to black voters about these facts, black voters turn out. Along with getting out the vote, BlackPAC addresses the problems within the Democratic Party. Black voters have been taken for granted. I repeatedly post links to articles that state these positions. I tell you that black activists are needed in leadership positions and you tell me that it will do no good. I disagree. I was told that black voters who were threatening not to vote should be ignored. Ignoring those potential voters would have resulted in defeat. The only way to make change was to make demands I was told. BlackPAC wants more seats in leadership. Is that not enough of a demand? I am asked about policy and I link to the party platform containing planks that address issues important to black voters. I am then told to point to policies. We talk past each other.
Reaching out to black voters threatening not to vote is crucial.
Black activists who got out the vote deserve a seat at the big boy table.
Democrats need to craft legislation to enforce what is already contained in the platform.
Black voters know that the Republicans control the government, they are wor to get Democrats back in power so that the platform can be applied.
Here is a link to AM Joy. The page contains the 11 minute video segment with the BlackPAC
http://www.msnbc.com/am-joy
(cant embed the video on my iPad)
If the above does not satisfy you, I don’t know what else to say. Black activists in power is important. The surge in the black vote was not expected. Black activists may push the party forward. Attacking it before it is tried is self-defeating
Regarding AA, my point is that there is a double standard. It can be repeatedly suggested that I am a racist and there are crickets. When I respond, it is going down a rabbit hole. I get shut down if I respond. That is the point of my comment.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 7:21am
Come on - I didn't say it would "do no good" - I said it wasn't a plan. No, that's not "enough of a demand". That's bullshit quota, vs. actually saying what they'll do. Hey, I grew up with Rev Ike on the TV/radio - what did that help? Will yourself to riches, buy yourself a limo and more wealth will follow? Fortunately there was an MLK at the same time who had real plans & real strategies.
Why don't you summarize the actual strategies in the 11 min segment? I thought Hillary was reaching out to black voters and non-voters in 2008 and 2016, even though not black, with very concrete proposals. I understand the limits of inspiration from an old well-off white woman, but aside from getting Jay-Z or Kanye West or Beyonce (yeah, it's disappointing to only be able to speak in terms of entertainers, but I don't see Kamala Harris as getting it yet.... etc.) to provide a new image, what would be the desired words to come out of their mouths? (and this goes for Tulsi Gabbard, and whatever other up-and-coming down-with-the-millennials fresh face.).
I think of Bernie as an election year fad that the alt-left filled up with their litmus positions, not that he's that far off, but to me it was a cut-out like Bill Bradley, insert here, build the far progressive in 30 secs. Repeat every 4 years. But what's inspiring these masses in the off year, 1 year after an election? Same with black voters - when there's not a politician coming around, what are they demanding themselves? Where do they see themselves in 10 years, and how do they propose doing it, and only then, WHO will push that through?
As for the "r" word, I think much of your commentary here runs a very narrow spectrum of interest and interpretation. Whether that's because you feel it important to represent the voice of the black community here, or that's most of what you're really into, I still don't quite know. In any case, getting into it with AA over who has enough ins with the black community to speak for them sounds like a race to the bottom and wholly pretentious/presumptious/whatever. Even if 98% vote against Roy Moore, there's more diversity in actual opinion than that displays. But still, we're getting away from issues into personality crap and ad hominems. Besides not being beat up/killed by cops in the street and having slavery fans in office, what are the 2018 issues and platform that will get everybody moving, not just reacting?
[by the way, much of the 2016 election was spent distracting people with all this personality stuff, and the important issues got away from us. similar to Kap's reasonable crusade being hijacked by "support the troops" until (possibly too) late in the day]
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 8:02am
The list includes things like Congress addressing the hole left by gutting the Voting Rights Act.Federal oversight of law enforcement agencies, revamping the education system, attacking the wealth gap and a host of other issues is important. Translating that into legislation is difficult. What can I do as a citizen? I can support organizations and candidates. Black Lives Matter attempts to address police abuse, but the message gets corrupted by media. BlackPAC knocks on doors. The NAACP was providing support in the background in Virginia and Alabama. Nationally, nothing is going to get done as long as Republicans are in control. The plan is resist now and vote in 2018.
You vote for the most Liberal person who can get elected. That easily put Obama over McCain and Romney, Hillary over Trump, and a Centrist like Doug Jones over Roy Moore. It put the Democratic candidate for Mayor of Atlanta over the Republican. Democrats are not in power so the media is not focused on Democrats. Some Democrats like Gillibrand will break through to the microphones, but those will be few and far between. It probably won’t be until the 2018 midterms that the media focuses on Democrats.
While we wait for media to pay attention, Trump and the Republicans will be actively obstructing the Mueller investigation.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 12/17/2017 - 2:48pm