yurbud
yurbud's JournalTOON: a British take on centrism:
https://twitter.com/MacJuanma/status/963680206857916417TOON: Senator Squish & Senator Stalwart
This sums up why Democrats still manage to lose to a party of grifters and sociopaths.
courtesy of DailyKos.
Dems voting to roll back Dodd-Frank shows how centrists tie Democrats hands in MAJORITY
Even when Democrats are in the majority or even supermajority in the Senate, centrists Democrats give Republicans a de facto supermajority on privatization of government services, economic, trade, foreign policy, and many budget priorities, which is why even if Obama had wanted a more progressive healthcare reform policy, stimulus, or strings on Wall Street bailouts, he probably could not have gotten it.
And because he was constrained by those centrists, he could not draw a stark enough contrast with Republicans to hold the Congress or even the presidency at the end of his term.
If you don't like what Republicans are doing, Democrats who support them in all but the Klan & NRA rallies are not the ones to keep them out of office, and more importantly, not the ones to keep the worst of their policies from being implemented.
I would be glad to see Trump go down for collusion but if not, will Mueller pursue other charges?
The collusion charge seems to hang not just on whether Trump actively worked with Russia on the election, but whether Russia is our enemy in the wartime sense as opposed to an economic rival in some sectors.
Will Mueller pursue other charges as well, or just let the whole investigation stand or fall on that?
The money-laundering, organized crime ties, and even other Russia related charges like ending sanctions in exchange for his Russian debts being forgiven seem more substantive.
The other reason these other charges should be filed: I don't want to see Trump merely leave office. He should go to prison for all that other stuff, not just because he did it and because he's a vile person, but to send a message to politicians and their owners that no one is above the law, not even the President.
When Obama first mentioned this stuff publicly on his way out the door, that was a sea change for the Democratic Party that has largely given the GOP a pass on political dirty tricks from Nixon's treasons promises to South Vietnam before the '68 election to the October Surprise in '80, to Iran Contra, and the various Baby Bush war lies and ties to business crimes like Enron.
Putting Trump in prison would be a step toward real democracy. If a couple of the billionaires who are backing him managed to get there too, so much the better.
TOON: GOP INaction figure
https://ci6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/35AtIguj0YTjRIyniwd34QoUZskR73KTcc3vLCdcicFtserpGVMq2Zcz1ywOP7WoNjKkQAjeiLncpi7iexljYuiq92eHVZ9tRHJoPep58EMzfdIMGAUubacAHKcCKKHr2DwM5xst7lbpTKhRHa6HjRHrg5qy=s0-d-e1-ft#If Trump wants a military parade, it should be all the trust fund baby chickenhawks like him...
If Trump wants a military parade, it should be all the cowardly, pampered trust fund baby chickenhawks like him who had their daddies pay doctors to write them excuses to keep them out of war but are now brave with OTHER people's lives.
Dick Cheney could be the grand Marshall.
And George W. Bush could do a fly over since he joined the Air National Guard but checked the box that said he did NOT want to go to Vietnam-- but later he did want to send thousands of our troops to be killed and maimed and killed likely over a million Iraqis.
Then after the parade, we can load them all up in military transports, and drop them wherever Trump plans to start a war.
Context on Nunes Memo: in 2016, FISA court denied 0.5% of warrant applications...
Since 1979, it has denied 0.052% of warrants.
Do Republicans really think if that extra information was in the request, FISA would have denied it?
The court's new reporting methods also revealed that the FISA court also rejected parts of 26 requests submitted by the NSA and the FBI.
In other words, just 0.5 percent of all surveillance requests last year were denied.
By comparison, since 1979 to date, the court has approved 40,117 warrants but only rejected 21 requests. That's a rejection rate of 0.052 percent.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/in-obamas-final-year-us-secret-court-denied-record-number-of-surveillance-requests/
on Nunes Memo: isn't standard of proof for a warrant much, much lower than evidence for trial?
Is there any requirement to include exculpatory evidence in the warrant application?
Fifteen Years After Invasion of Iraq: Anglo-American Oil Giants Start to Flaunt the Spoils of War
Just a reminder of who actually profits as various factions in Washington lobby for war and regime change in nations big and small.
The British oil and gas company BP won the contract to operate the Rumaila Oil Field back in 2009, and now proudly boast of its new drilling capabilities on Twitter. Rumaila is simply huge; by some measures it is the third largest reserve of crude oil on the planet, and is currently extracting 100 million dollars worth of oil every day enough to cover the annual health budget of Iraq under the wartime rule of the US coalition every five days.
One of the board members of BP at present is Sir John Sawers, the former Chief of MI6 from 2009 to 2014 who acted as UK special representative to Iraq during the occupation. He cashed in a few favours and joined BP as an Independent Non-Executive Director in 2015, one year after he departed MI6 and two years after BP had been handed a licence to exploit one of the most valuable pools of liquid gold on the planet. There was seemingly no regulatory oversight of this very British oligarchy.
In March 2003, just before Britain went to war, BP denounced reports that it had held talks with Downing Street about Iraqi oil as highly inaccurate and denied that it had any strategic interest in Iraq, while Tony Blair described the oil conspiracy theory as the most absurd.
However, memos disclosed by The Independent in 2011 tell a very different story. In a series of meetings in 2003, BP revealed that they had approached Labour Peer Lady Symons to lobby the Blair government into demanding a share of spoils from the Iraq War in return for UK military support.
1944 poll: Would you rather have Social Security handle health insurance?
It's remarkable that people understood this even back then and our elected representatives have resisted what we would call Medicare for All today for so many decades.
If Democrats want to win, and more importantly, do the cost effective and morally right thing, they would say "Medicare for All" every time someone puts a camera in their face.
That three word framing of the issue essentially is the beginning and end of the debate, and the rest is just filling in the details, which would actually be easier than Medicare for old people since you would capture all those younger, healthier people who don't buy insurance now because they are playing medical emergency roulette.
https://twitter.com/HistOpinion/status/877562114939990017
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Jul 11, 2004, 07:58 PMNumber of posts: 39,405