US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7415

On April 28 2017 07:19 KwarK wrote:

Deniability? Surely if you sent him 400k by paypal people would go "okay, so that's earned income, how did he earn it?". If you pay him 400k for a speech then on the face of it you've done exactly that.

Either way though it seems to be pretty much the market rate. It's not like they charge lower fees when they're not on the take.

On April 28 2017 07:18 Nevuk wrote:
When open bribery is legal why bother to hide it? And people can be bribed for pathetically low sums of money, ad proven throughout history.

On April 28 2017 07:24 Plansix wrote:

From what I can find it seems to be the going rate. If GH is correct, I bet Bernie cashed a 300K check from a university not to long ago.

If people object to democrats getting any payments from Wall Street for speeches, I see where they are coming from. It doesn't bother me that much, but I get the point. If people don't want them to take any speaking gigs at all because it looks like buying influence, I'm not sure that is viable.

On April 28 2017 07:27 Plansix wrote:

But someone was going to speak at this Wall Street gig right? Someone was cashing a 400K check.

I'm feeling the: Obama back previous staff he worked with for over 5 years for DNC chair = speaking fee is bribery for doing that. It seems like reaching a bit.



Apparently that man taught at Harvard.

A Republican congressman from Arizona defended the construction of a barrier on the U.S.-Mexico border by arguing that a nuclear weapon could be smuggled across a porous border in a bale of marijuana.

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), whose district is just over 100 miles away from the U.S.-Mexico border, referenced the illicit drug trade in a discussion Wednesday with CNN’s Brianna Keilar on President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall.

“The reality, Brianna, is that we have to measure all of the costs, ancillary and otherwise, and make the best decision that we can. But I can suggest to you that there are national security implications here for a porous border,” Franks said. “We sometimes used to make the point that if someone wanted to smuggle in a dangerous weapon, even a nuclear weapon, into America, how would they do it? And the suggestion was made, ‘Well, we'll simply hide it in a bale of marijuana.’”

“So the implications of a porous border have national security dimensions that are very significant and that bear a lot of conversation when we talk about costs," he said.

This was not Frank’s first reference to a nuclear weapon traveling across the border in a bale of marijuana. In fact, he raised the possibility on the floor of the U.S. House during an Aug. 2, 2012 speech, according to his website.

“Specifically imagine for a moment, Mr. Speaker, the scenario of Hezbollah, one of Iran's terrorist proxies, gaining possession of just two nuclear warheads and bringing them across the border into the United States concealed, say, in bales of marijuana,” he said, “then transporting them into the heart of two different, crowded, unnamed cities. Then calling and telling the White House exactly when and where the first one will be detonated, and then following through 60 seconds later.”

The Democrats delivered one thing in the past 100 days: disappointment

The distinctive feature of these bleak times is the lack of institutional capacity on the left – the absence of a political party that swings free of Wall Street and speaks to the dire circumstances of poor and working people. As the first 100 days of the plutocratic and militaristic Trump administration draw to a close, one truth has been crystal clear: the Democratic party lacks the vision, discipline and leadership to guide progressives in these turbulent times.

The neoliberal vision of the Democratic party has run its course. The corporate wing has made it clear that the populist wing has little power or place in its future. The discipline of the party is strong on self-preservation and weak on embracing new voices. And party leaders too often revel in self-righteousness and self-pity rather than self-criticism and self-enhancement. The time has come to bid farewell to a moribund party that lacks imagination, courage and gusto.

The 2016 election – which Democrats lost more than Republicans won – was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The unfair treatment of Bernie Sanders was but the peak of the iceberg. In the face of a cardboard Republican candidate equipped with pseudo-populist rhetoric and ugly xenophobic plans, the Democratic party put forward a Wall Street-connected and openly militaristic candidate with little charisma.

The crucial issues of a $15 minimum wage and saying no to fracking, no to TPP, no to Israeli occupation and yes to single-payer healthcare were pushed aside by the corporate wing and the populist wing was told to quit whining or take responsibility for the improbable loss.

The monumental collapse of the Democratic party – on the federal, state and local levels – has not yielded any serious soul-wrestling or substantive visionary shifts among its leadership. Only the ubiquitous and virtuous Bernie remains true to the idea of fundamental transformation of the party – and even he admits that seeking first-class seats on the Titanic is self-deceptive and self-destructive.

We progressives need new leadership and institutional capacity that provides strong resistance to Trump’s vicious policies, concrete alternatives that matter to ordinary citizens and credible visions that go beyond Wall Street priorities and militaristic policies. And appealing to young people is a good testing ground.

Even as we forge a united front against Trump’s neofascist efforts, we must admit the Democratic party has failed us and we have to move on. Where? To what? When brother Nick Brana, a former Bernie campaign staffer, told me about the emerging progressive populist or social democratic party – the People’s party – that builds on the ruins of a dying Democratic party and creates new constituencies in this moment of transition and liquidation, I said count me in.

And if a class-conscious multi-racial party attuned to anti-sexist, anti-homophobic and anti-militaristic issues and grounded in ecological commitments can reconfigure our citizenship, maybe our decaying democracy has a chance. And if brother Bernie Sanders decides to join us – with many others, including sister Jill Stein and activists from Black Lives Matter and brown immigrant groups and Standing Rock freedom fighters and betrayed working people – we may build something for the near future after Trump implodes.

On April 28 2017 07:52 a_flayer wrote:
I'd really like to see Bernie - who has himself said he is not a Democrat - join this effort by Nick Brana to start a new party. It could work. With Bernie's backing the party would instantly gain millions of voters and probably quite a few of the thousands of the new Democratic candidates at the local & state levels. It could explode over a very short period of time.

Interview with Nick Brana and Cornel West on Democracy Now in the spoiler. Article in The Guardian by Cornel West below.

+ Show Spoiler +


Source

On April 28 2017 07:54 KwarK wrote:
It's a FPTP system a_flayer. Millions of voters won't win you a single damn race unless they're all in one place and even then it'll only win you one race.

Learn how the system works then come back. Splintering off into a new party never works in a two party FPTP system. Game theory dictates that it can never work.

On April 28 2017 08:13 a_flayer wrote:
Can someone explain to me how the Republican Party got started?

On April 28 2017 08:15 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:


It started as an anti slavery party. So there was a single issue that united everyone. not a historian so I'm not going to start saying I know anything more than that.