Bno

Is it conscious politics to hold devils accountable?

66 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, Bno said:

Focusing on the Russigate issue over other more harmful actions Trump was committing is not productive. In order to beat Trump, we need to focus on issues that will hurt him. The MSM Russiagate coverage and now the impeachment hearings are not hurting him, they're actually increasing his approval rating. Don't you think there's a more efficient way to damage Trump's chances of winning in 2020 by focusing on more proveable actions hes committed that have hurt the average American? Overall, Americans do not care about Russiagate and these new Ukrainiangate impeachment hearings. They care more about policies that are affecting their day-to-day lives.

I’m not too interested in a “Russiagate” narrative. I’’m more concerned about Russian interference into our elections as indicated by all US intelligence agencies, national security advisors and diplomats. To me, fundamental threats to democracy should be taken seriously. I’m supportive of US intelligent officials, national security advisors, diplomats and journalists that are putting themselves on the line as they attempt to convey the degradation of our election integrity, which is the foundation of our democracy. Imo, his transcends any single US president, including Trump. And it’s not just limited to Russia, as it’s also clearly revealed with the Ukraine, and likely other countries as well. And it’s not just limited to foreign interference into our elections. Things like voter suppression and campaign financing are also big concerns for me.

If we devolve to non-democratic authoritarianism, it doesn’t really matter if we have president trump or authoritarian “president x”. The underling degradation of election integrity and democracy is the deeper issue.

I think getting Trump out of office is a key and I think it’s important to play politics well to do that. As you say, the Russian interference may not be an effective case against Trump. It’s very nuanced and includes complexities. The Ukraine situation may be more effective as it is more direct, simple and easy to disseminate to a populace that is not engaged with politics. Yet I also think there is corrosion that goes deeper than Trump.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Tulsi is way overrated. She don't deserve to be president. Foreign policy does not a good president make. Tusli has a checked past when it comes to progressive domestic policy issues.

100% of foreign policy issues affects domestic issues. 

What part of her domestic policy record was not progressive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Serotoninluv This is definitely something to be concerned about. I also would argue that election integrity is the most important issue so that we dont live in a false democracy, like you said.

Tulsi Gabbard a few months ago has introduced HR 1946 called "Securing America's Elections Act." She hopes that this can get passed before 2020 so that no domestic or foreign entity can interfere in federal elections.

Unfortunately, the GOP and DNC establishments are not doing much to get this passed and it seems like they're ignoring it. There is also this below, which I have shown you in a previous post:

"So, the liberals who are seeing this entirely through a partisan lens are missing the big picture and H. R. McMaster has basically been implanted in the Trump Administration after Michael Flynn was dimed out,as their direct channel into the National Security Kitchen Cabinet. Through H. R. McMaster, they implanted Fiona Hill, who is known simply for being at the Brookings Institute and writing a book-length attack on Vladimir Putin. She’s now kind of the in-house Russia expert. And another significant event happened at Munich when McMaster was on stage. A Russian senator rose from the crowd and asked McMaster if the US and the Trump Administration would be interested in any way on collaborating on cybersecurity and on de-escalating cyber attacks, basically, writing treaties against cyber attacks, and McMaster flat out rejected this proposal. This is the second time the US has rejected Russian proposals to sign treaties against meddling in cyber attacks. So, the Cold War continues with total liberal consent."

https://thegrayzone.com/2018/02/20/can-trumps-neocons-exploit-russiagate-2-2/

Edited by Bno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bno Yea, unfortunately McConnell won’t allow a senate vote on bills that aim to protect election integrity. That’s part of the structural problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Serotoninluv Not just him, but all corporate Republicans and Democrats unless it's some kind of bill that's funded by a company that wants to monopolize on all voting machines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bno said:

100% of foreign policy issues affects domestic issues. 

What part of her domestic policy record was not progressive?

I have no faith that she will fight hard for serious progressive domestic reforms. She hardly talks about them. All she talks about is war and military issues.

She's fairly conservative in her outlook.

I trust that Bernie or Warren will not start any wars. So what's the point of Tulsi? Not starting war is like the bare minimum in a candidate. I don't sense that she has any original domestic plans. If she does, she hasn't communicated it.


"Be melting snow. Wash yourself of yourself." -- Rumi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I have no faith that she will fight hard for serious progressive domestic reforms. She hardly talks about them. All she talks about is war and military issues.

She's fairly conservative in her outlook.

I trust that Bernie or Warren will not start any wars. So what's the point of Tulsi? Not starting war is like the bare minimum in a candidate. I don't sense that she has any original domestic plans. If she does, she hasn't communicated it.

Idt you've heard enough about Tulsi or Warren. Tulsi is a cosponsor of HR40, which is legislation to study more on reparations for descendants of slaves. She has a climate change legislation which is better than The Green New Deal because it actually bans fracking and it is called the "OFF fossil fuels for a better future act". She is developing her own single payer plan for healthcare. As I told Serotoninluv, she has her legislature for "Securing America's Elections Act." And she has many other legislature to end domestic corporate corruption. She also has introduced legislature with Bernie Sanders to increase the minimum wage and fair pay (HR 15, HR 582, and HR 1869). She talks about this in her speeches and town halls where she often exclaims "one job should be enough!"

I think you dont hear enough about her because neoliberal-lites like TYT, Rational National, Michael Brooks, and Sam Sedar, and to some extent Mike Figuerito have blinded themselves into thinking they have to bash everyone except Bernie and fail to see her as his ally during the race as she moves the conversations on the debates to the left. The MSM is also doing everything they can so that you don't hear about her because they're so afraid of her, hence why they always smear her even more than they smear Bernie.

Tulsi has also elaborated on her policies in more politically conscious channels like MCSC Network, Primo Nutmeg, Joe Rogan, Michael Tracy and The Rising show on The Hill. Also, to be fair, Cenk gave her a pretty good interview.

On the other hand, Warren has a detrimental healthcare "plan" that she succumbed to under pressure and developed it over the course of a couple of days. This plan will in no way get passed because it tried to integrate it with immigration policies and it will be funded via head taxes, which business can find myriad of loopholes to get around it. 

Warren has also voted in favor of Trump's increase in the already bloated military budget twice. She supported the attempted coup in Venezuela and agreed with the coup in Bolivia. If you look at her record on foreign policy even further back, you'll see that she can get easily manipulated to get into wars. Not to mention her ridiculous claim that she'll invest in a greener military instead of reducing the huge budget and foreign interventions.

Warren took corporate money from her senate race and incorporated into her presidential campaign. She also said on a TYT interview that she doesn't believe in unilateral disarmament because she is willing to take corporate money during the general election if she becomes the nominee. Her daughter also has pattons in several big money think tanks which donated a lot of money to the working families party, which later endorsed her over Sanders in a superdelegate-like voting process. These behaviors disqualify Warren as a progressive. And this is without even mentioning her not supporting Bernie in 2016, which was later revealed to be because she was in talks to be Hillary's VP pick. Oh yea, and she is also still meeting with Hillary Clinton behind the scenes for supposive advice. 

Edited by Bno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do find Warren suspicious. She was a Republican some decades ago.

Then again, so was Cenk.

Bernie is the only one with a solid, unquestionable record.


"Be melting snow. Wash yourself of yourself." -- Rumi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I do find Warren suspicious. She was a Republican some decades ago.

Then again, so was Cenk.

Bernie is the only one with a solid, unquestionable record.

I feel like if Warren gets in it will be Obama 2.0. I think on some level she does truly believe in creating big structural change for the US, but on an even deeper level she believes in “playing ball” with the establishment and   emphasising compromise over actual policies. 

Obviously though America is more progressive now than under Obama so she will have to make more room for the left, but as a POTUS I don’t think she’ll be half as effective as what Bernie can be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I acknowledge and respect when people grow and change. However, Warren's recent actions as a Democrat and her flip-floppiness loses my trust in her. But when people remain consistent for 40+ years, how can I not trust you?

Edited by Bno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2019 at 4:09 PM, Leo Gura said:

I think you're being too picky. Anna is doing a decent job overall. Gotta give people some leeway or it turns into a circular firing squad.

Well she really didn't do a decent job on this 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yang's UBI is regressive is some ways. That was Anna's point. And it's a valid point. Why not give people on disability the full UBI? People who earn $1 billion a year will get the full UBI but people on disability will not???

It makes no sense!


"Be melting snow. Wash yourself of yourself." -- Rumi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Yang's UBI is regressive is some ways. That was Anna's point. And it's a valid point. Why not give people on disability the full UBI? People who earn $1 billion a year will get the full UBI but people on disability will not???

It makes no sense!

I agree with you there. Something is better than nothing though. The only reason to not do that is to ease people into this. If we did something like that it's kind of like turning up the heat too fast and the frog jumps out of the water. We have to do it slowly. Everyone gets the same dividend in Alaska every year and things have improved for everyone over all. Also rich people will pay way more into the system than what they get out of it. If Jeff Bezo's rocket to mars is 10 million dollars that's 1 million into the UBI system with the VAT tax that's tailored through luxury goods. This way what the person who gets a billion a year will be paying millions into the UBI system when they buy their jets, islands, and skyscrapers etc. That seems more fair when you look at it that way no? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also @Leo Gura let's do a though experiment. Let's say if in this country 80% of people's benefits from welfare was equal to or less than $500 a month with very stringent requirements they could lose at any time then you'd have another 10% of people's welfare benefits were higher than $1000 a month but, they had to jump through all sorts of hoops before getting them and once they got a job they'd lose all of it. Then the worst of the worst which are 10% people who are in need yet see $0 benefits and they are struggling to survive. 

Would you sacrifice the 90% getting less than $1000 just so those 10% of people can have more than that $1000 and so people who are ultra wealthy don't see the $1000 at all? If that's the case I think it's very short sighted and not holistic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Revolutionary Think I would not sacrifice. I would do a full UBI for everyone and tax gaint corporations more to pay for it. Simple and clean. I don't understand why Yang can't be so straight forward about it. This makes me suspicious of him.


"Be melting snow. Wash yourself of yourself." -- Rumi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura I'm on the same page pal. Yang is just saying that the giant corporations are slippery buggers they lube themselves and slide away from the taxes with their loopholes attorneys etc. They implemented a wealth tax in the European countries and it didn't work. I'm just wondering they should just get rid of income taxes all together and tax wealth where people just get the money sitting on their asses and contributing nothing to society. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loopholes can be closed. It's not like corporations can escape taxation if we really wanted to tax them. A wealth tax is not necessary. We could simply create a new tax on all corporate profits. We know the profits of all publically traded companies so this is not something they could run away from or hide.

We could also have special taxes on business transactions between large corporations.

There could be a merger tax, where the gov gets large tax if one business buys another one.


"Be melting snow. Wash yourself of yourself." -- Rumi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Revolutionary Think said:

So why aren't we just doing that now? Probably because of people like Mitch McConjob. 

Because corporations have bought the government. We need to pass a consitutional amendment to ban all money in elections. Corporations basically need to be de-fanged. A corporation should have zero voting power.


"Be melting snow. Wash yourself of yourself." -- Rumi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now