Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


nikto's Journal
nikto's Journal
January 25, 2017

Uh, yeah, CIA vs The Prez is kind of a scary idea, ya' think?

JFK and the CIA/Allen Dulles were very much at odds, and even bitter enemies.

If interested, check this out:


here's more info:


It's derived from long-classified documents that were released to the author and his team.

I do not have a high degree of trust in the CIA, regardless of Trump and his situation.

History tells us the CIA is not trustworthy.

I say,
Be careful of the bedfellows the awfulness of Trump drives you to sleep with.

January 10, 2017

The main hackers of the 2016 election were most likely the GOP

There was the interstate GOP "Cross-Check" system described in detail by Greg Palast on his site
and in numerous articles and videos.


Add-in literally 1000s of polling places closed-down in a couple dozen GOP-run states in areas of likely strong Democratic leanings,
along with the ID card restrictions imposed in Texas and numerous other GOP states.

Then, as the final Coup de grâce, (and this is the real hack) there was the "red-shift" vs the exit-polls
(which was so prominent back in 2004), especially strong in the swing states, where it appeared with
an almost surgical precision
to turn those states around, in spite of large popular vote advantages for HC,
and in spite of the fact that there was no equivalent 'blue-shift"
in ANY state, in ANY race.





What bothers me a lot is that, in spite of loud protestations about possible Russian hacking of the election,
which is scary and bad,
Democrats don't seem very interested in this story, where domestic hackers may have been key
in flipping the election.

Is election fraud OK if it's done by Americans?

Mainstream Democrats hardly even address this issue.
Dear God,
Why is that?

January 5, 2017

Folks on this board have been hyper-sensitive about certain words for a while now

Case in point, from a couple years ago...


I agree with some of your points, but not with a bunch of others.

You're just further right than I am, economically.
My economic views are basically the same as in the 60s.

It is The Party that has changed, not me so much, and I have seen the changes, all the way.
Feel free to write me off as old-fashioned leftist.

You probably dislike Ralph Nader too, right?


The GOP is ofcourse more blatantly and openly Corporatist than the Democrats,
who have been more stealthy about it.

As it is generally understood, Corporatism refers to a corporate/Banking/big-money dominated society,
along the lines of Mussolini's government in Italy in the 30s/early 40s, with gov't and big business
working in close association to control most aspects of the society, including media.
Some have credited Mussolini with inventing the term, Corporatism. It has strong military leanings,
as military might is seen as a way to to prop up big business interests.

It is not Democratic.
It is associated with Fascism.

The term has older origins and variations on meaning, but has evolved into this general meaning today, in our age, as used by renowned (in the opinions of many, but not Corporatists/Neoliberals) voices like Chris Hedges and Noam Chomsky.

Neoliberalism is close in meaning, and bears many likenesses.

Unequivocally, the following Pre-2000 laws are victories for Corporatism/Neoliberalism, and I have watched all of them come to pass down through the years under different presidents:

Pres. Carter--De-regulation of airlines

--Big tax cuts, huge military budget, Union-busting (starting with air-traffic controllers),
elimination of Fairness Doctrine, huge deficits taking money away from social programs,
stripped regulations wherever possible, preached "free-market" ideology from his bully-pulpit,
and pushed much of the country in that direction , including the Clintons.

Clinton--NAFTA, GATT, 1996 Telecomunications Act, elimination of Glass-Steagall Act (1999).

BOTH parties have gotten us to where we are.

OK OK, OK, I totally agree the GOP is still much worse.
There is no home there for the likes of me there, for certain.

But oldtime New Deal Democrats like me think the Democratic Party can do better -- for The People.

Not questioning, or allowing not questioning will not strengthen the Party.
Imposed conformity is not unity.

As always.

Here's a blog post Ive done recently, which shows you an honest glimpse of my own Progressivism,
in the age of Trump.
I doubt you'll agree with me on all the issues, but probably still will, on many.


January 5, 2017

It's not purism --- that's just lazy thinking

They're called, values.

Mine go back to the 50s, and evolved thru the following decades, thru JFK, LBJ,
Nixon, Carter, Reagan, BushI, etc, up to now.

And yes, I supported Bernie.

But I forgive you, man.

You're just scared, as many folks are.
I am too.

FDR's classic advice helps now.

Just don't let fear cloud your vision, as it has for many these days.

Below is a link to a blog post I have made.
If you are serious about knowing where I'm coming from, check it out:


January 4, 2017

One of FDR's biggest battles was getting the southern Democrats ...

... To spend money allocated by the New Deal in non-white areas.
These politicians (or the equivalent) are all GOPers now.

(Hey ---- That might be an argument for kicking-out all Conservatives from the Democratic Party, eh?
You know---Learn from the past. lol)

The New Deal wasn't inherently racist at all.

Unfortunately, it counted on unavoidable cooperation with the nasty, racist, POS southern Dems.

That is not the fault of the New Deal or FDR.

1 more thing ...

One area where people of color did receive New Deal benefits was in some of the big
water and power projects that supplied electricity to poor rural areas for the first time ever,
raising the standard of living (Tennesse Valley Authority, etc etc).

January 4, 2017

You use the word, "Progressive" too loosely

Obama governed as a Corporatist on many important issues, and that should be acknowledged.

Thankfully, Obama's achievements on social issues and some environmental issues were Progressive.

The Iran Treaty, plus opening Cuba, were Progressive.

Infrastructure spending (limited by GOP) was Progressive.

I give him full credit for those policies, and some others, for sure.

settling quickly on a for-profit health plan without battling for Single-Payer or Public Option, 1000s of drone killings, Race-To-The-Top (NCLB on steroids, ask a teacher), destruction of Libya (a Neocon desire), continued expansion of NATO (Neocon), strongly pushing TPP/TTIP, authorizing a new generation of micro-nukes (at 1-2$Trillion cost), Eric Holder's "Too Big To Fail",
bailing out banks and not people (to compare, see Iceland for actual Progressivism on this issue), and putting a cluster of corporate people like Geitner, Paulson and Arnie Duncan in the cabinet is not Progressivism.

Not my opinion. Fact.

No Republican made Obama put those corporate people in his cabinet, or told him to follow the Neocon plan
for American hegemony overseas, or made him sign-off on all those drone killings, done without
due process, or told him to give the money to the banks in 2008, while letting them keep millions of citizens in debt.

Obama is a Centrist, with some Progressive leanings, but some Conservative leanings as well.

Admittedly, a number of Democratic leaders like Schumer, are even more corporate-leaning,
and may have been a Conservative
influence on some of Obama's policies.

A Corporatist Democratic Party is doomed to the dustbin of history.

We already have a Corporate Party----The GOP.
I say----Let them run on that, alone.

America does not need 2 Corporate parties.

January 3, 2017

Basically, it is POLICY that counts, not messaging

The Schumer/Establishment end of the Party still thinks it's about messaging.

They could not be more wrong.

It's about policies.

It's very simple, really:

The current corporate and banking funder$ of the Democratc Party will not permit
policies that are good for the middle class
(inexpensive education, secure SS and Medicare,
Single-Payer HC, sensible banking regulations, etc.)

They never will.

To be an honest Party of The People again, the Democrats are going to have to kick-out
the corporate people
and their money, and become a more left-leaning, truly Progressive Party that stands for the
things Bernie Sanders talked about, and more.

The Party will become much poorer, but it will then be a real party again.
It will again have a soul.

That is the answer.

Problem is, too many people who insist on calling themselves Democrats, don't like that answer
and see FDR/New Deal policies as undesirable.

OK, then, The Democratic Party dies.

Is this the future that has to be?

December 18, 2016

Should the Democratic Party start using the GOP's vote-suppression tactics in blue states?

You know the methods the GOP uses in its "red" states.
Couldn't we play a similar game, since the Supreme Court now allows it?

Such as:
Limiting the GOP vote via
closing-down MANY polling places in GOP-areas (to save $$ is the best excuse),
caging voters similarly to "Cross-Check" (thoroughly covered by Greg Palast),
and using electronic tabulation to create, for once, an actual "blue-shift", which, so far, does not exist-----
There is only a "red" shift so far (and the GOP used it in the "swing" states, ofcourse, where it was most needed).
This "shift" was covered by Mark Crispin Miller.

The GOP uses all these methods to crush Democrats.
Yeah, it's dirty.

But if we want these filthy tactics to be outlawed,
we are going to have to use them against the GOP.

Otherwise, why should the GOP give up weapons the other side refuses to EVER use?

OK, I'll go take a shower now.

But if we are not willing to get down and dirty, the GOP
will NEVER stop using down and dirty tactics against The Democratic Party.

Never. Not ever.

August 16, 2016

Even a huge, landslide loss by Trump will not be the end of the danger, by a long-shot

The real problem for America, isn't Trump.

Can you guess what it is?

It is the tens of millions of people who passionately support him.
They, or their families, in millions of cases, have been hurt by an economy that favors
investors, bankers and corporations. In addition, these folks' emotions and perceptions have been
twisted like pretzels by the racist-tinged, highly-manipulative, NON-STOP avalanche of
venal, dishonest BS that is FoxNooz, vicious hate-radio talk-show hosts, and the hideous RW media
in general.

In addition, the racist fringe of America has joined in, with an ugly enthusiasm for attacking civil rights.
Put 'em all together, and you've got the "Trumpers".

The real Frankenstein's Monster is this group of many millions of enraged, and very confused and hateful Americans
who will only be frustrated further by Trump's defeat. They are not going anywhere.
They will, if history is to be any lesson for us, choose more and more extreme representatives to insert their hopes, fears and hatreds into, in an escalating pattern, possibly culminating in a future candidate far worse than Trump.

A solid Progressive agenda put forth by the Democratic Party, strongly and persistently, that truly helps the US middle class and working class to recover some sense of economic security,
earning power and HOPE
, would go a considerable way towards eroding and moderating this angry sub-group,
and reducing both their numbers and their intensity.

But if both parties continue their intensely pro-corporate/pro-big-business course on economic policies, IMO,
things will continue to escalate and tilt frighteningly rightward.

In the classic example of Nazi Germany, the Nazi Party only got 37% of the vote. That may not be as many
as the "Trumpers" may be right now, in America. In 1930s Germany, The rest of the citizenry were pulled, or dragged, along, ultimately, by this minority, to disaster.
With the economic collapse Germany endured, that was all it took (37%) to bend the country to the extreme rightwing.

If that collapse could have been somehow lessened or neutralized for the majority of working people,
the 3rd Reich may never have come to power.

There will always be extremist groups and candidates, but history show us clearly:
Economics matter.

Bad economics clearly empowers tyranny and oppression. This a major lesson of History.
It behooves us to heed that in America, at this critical juncture.

A bad economy for working people, combined with a common sense of citizen helplessness in trying to change it,
empowers tyrants every time.

FoXNooz and the toxic US RW media ain't going anywhere (except maybe Hell).

The milions of angry, confused "Trumpers" will
still be searching, as drug-addicts do, for ever more potent sources of intoxication.

If the "bad whiskey" of past Republicans who damaged America, like Reagan and Dubya, has given way to the "cocaine" of Trump, then, we must ask-------if Trump fails,
what future candidate will be this group's heroin? Or crack?
Or meth?

If either party does not step-up to save America's middle class, the Trumpers will just get more and more extreme,
as will the "leaders" they are likely to put up, endangering our future, as much or MORE, as Trump endangers us now.

August 15, 2016

I seriously think Progressives should start to use that term

Letting the wealthy still exist, and still stay quite rich, is one of the results, and hallmarks of,
Democratic Socialism. Sure taxes go way up for the rich, but it is an essentially peaceful process.

That actually constitutes Compassionate Progressivism, because progressives are not
eliminationists (wanting to destroy/eliminate some "enemy" via specific policies, as corporate Conservatives
ALWAYS try to do, as a rule).

Ofcourse, if Democratic Socialism a la FDR/Bernie Sanders is defeated and crushed by the elites (as it seems
they want to do), then somewhere down the line the elites are going to have to deal with decidedly
less-compassionate social movements of tens of millions of massed, disillusioned, angry people staring them in the face.

If I were the elites, I would settle this thing (and get back to helping the US middle class) via Social Democracy, rather
than something farther down the line that could really be nasty, and probably will not be good for either democracy or
the economy.

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Home country: USA
Current location: California
Member since: Sat Sep 9, 2006, 06:02 PM
Number of posts: 3,284

Journal Entries

Latest Discussions»nikto's Journal