Three quarters of a century ago, young men, many actually still boys, demonstrated courage and selflessness when they committed to the liberation of Europe from the evil of Nazi Germany, by storming the beaches of Normandy, France.
Several thousand went into battle with the recognition of the likelihood that their lives would end, but with the sacrifice of their lives, western civilization would be saved from the horrors of Nazism and Fascism.
These men did not think about their own selfish needs and interests, and instead thought about their nation and the promotion of democracy.
Now we have a President who embodies none of the character and principles of that World War II generation, and not only those on D Day, but also those who fought and died throughout that war, and not only in Europe but also in Asia against Imperial Japan.
We have a President who has no respect for anything or anyone, and only is concerned about his own aggrandizement, and whose children are the most corrupt offspring in American history, bar none. The whole family deserves to be prosecuted and imprisoned for the rest of their lives, but whether that will happen is hard to predict.
But there is such a concept as karma, and what goes around comes around, and sometimes in ways one cannot perceive before they happen.
The major problem 75 years later is to eradicate the short and long term dangers of the new move toward totalitarian dictatorship, and stop it dead in its tracks, and that is the job of the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, which must move toward impeachment, exposing all of the details of this cancer–Trumpism–which is attempting to destroy everything decent and accomplished in the history of the American Republic.
â€˜There is hard data that shows that a centrist Democrat would be a losing candidateâ€™
By Keith A. Spencer (06.02.2019)
I think it is too early to determine whether or not the voters want someone who is middle of the road. Like my cousin, Southern Liberal, I think a lot of voters haven’t made up their minds yet due to the larger field this time around.
D, I think this article is preposterous, in saying that Mike Gravel, who is truly from the past, and would be 90 if elected, and has ZERO chance of even getting into any debates at this point, is a legitimate nominee possibility.
And you have already dismissed Warren, and really think a person who defines himself as a Socialist and does not play well with Democrats (Sanders), except when he wants to run for President, is going to convince the nation that he can govern, when he is a grouchy, no holds barred nominee, really the exact opposite of authoritarian Trump, but just as unwilling to play ball!
Unless we get a FDR 1935-36 Congress or a LBJ 1965-1966 Congress, NOTHING that Sanders would want will become law!
I do not see this argument and author as legitimate, and think a Castro, a Buttigieg, a Klobuchar, is perfectly electable, and would break another barrier–Latino (largest minority in America), sexuality, or gender–as JFK broke the religion barrier, Carter the Southern barrier (first elected since Zachary Taylor), Clinton, (Sexual Scandal barrier mattering), and Obama the race barrier.
All three are younger, particularly Castro and Buttigieg in the same age range as JFK, Clinton, and Obama, and would be inspiring!
I will respond to Ronald.
â€œD, I think this article is preposterous, in saying that Mike Gravel, who is truly from the past, and would be 90 if elected, and has ZERO chance of even getting into any debates at this point, is a legitimate nominee possibility.â€
The article is not solely about any mentioning of Mike Gravel. It covers Thomas Pikettyâ€™s findings that the 2020 Democrats will not flip the presidency of the United Statesâ€”and, in the process, unseat Republican incumbent U.S. president Donald Trumpâ€”with a continuation of their model of corporatism. It is Picketty supporting his findings with data. And this includes a change in politics in connection with changing dynamics in economics both domestic and foreign. (â€œPiketty’s paper is an inconvenient truth for the Democratic Party. The partyâ€™s leaders see themselves as the left wing of capitalâ€”supporting social policies that liberal rich people can get behind, never daring to enact economic reforms that might step on rich donors’ toes. Hence, the establishment seems intent on anointing the centrist Democrats of capital, who push liberal social policies and neoliberal economic policies.â€)
* * * * *
â€œAnd you have already dismissed [Elizabeth] Warren,â€¦â€
Yes, I dismiss Elizabeth Warren.
I donâ€™t dismiss her loosely.
Since 2016, actual progressives have picked up on her differences between talking the talk and walking the walk.
Here are five examples:
â€¨â€¢ In 2016, Elizabeth Warren did not endorse the Democratic candidate closer to her politically, Bernie Sanders, and she waited until the primaries were effectively over to endorse Hillary Clinton.
â€¢ Warren moved on from the primaries, and for the general election, to waste time trying to out-tweet Donald Trump on Twitter.
â€¢ Warren later was a no-show on Standing Rock, the Dakota Access Pipeline, only addressing the protests there as they were drawing to a close.
â€¢ In 2018, rather than endorse the actual progressive, Dennis Kucinich, to whom she is closer politically, Warren endorsed corporatist Richard Cordray for the Democratic nomination for Governor of Ohio. (Cordray went on to lose, understandably so, the general electionâ€”to Mike DeWineâ€”in a midterm election in which the Democrats flipped the U.S. House and won a net gain of +7 governorships with the need to gain +10 to win over a new majority count.)
â€¢ In 2019, Elizabeth Warren, who has reliably voted to continue to fun the military for the endless warsâ€”and to the tune of billions; and under the presidency of Trumpâ€”wrote a piece titled â€œOur military can help lead the fight in combating climate changeâ€ (https://medium.com/@teamwarren/our-military-can-help-lead-the-fight-in-combating-climate-change-2955003555a3).
Elizabeth Warren, although she does have some good policy ideas, and that is good, is not a leader that is suggestive of being president of the United Statesâ€¦let alone one who unseats an incumbent U.S. president. And, yet, she is one of the better candidates.
* * * * *
â€œâ€¦and really think a person who defines himself as a Socialist and does not play well with Democrats (Sanders), except when he wants to run for President, is going to convince the nation that he can governâ€¦â€
(The self-described term by Bernie Sanders is â€œdemocratic socialism.â€ It is more â€œsocial democrat.â€)
Look at Medicare for All!
70 percent approval by all. An outright majority 52 percent from self-identified Republicans. 85 percent from self-identified Democrats.
The fact that even a majority of self-identified Republicans want Medicare for All is an example of leadership. Bernie Sanders moved the people. He moved the Democratic Party (except, and this must be noted, the corporate Democrats who are paid off by the health insurance companies.) It means he has moved the country.
In addition to Medicare for All, the fight for $15 and free college tuition are now in our politics. (Julian Castro, who you mentioned later, got on board for all threeâ€”this year.)
â€¨Who else, if you may not think it was Bernie Sanders, brought these policies to light? It wasnâ€™t Hillary Clinton. (Here is a related report on the example of leadership offered by 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-single-payer-health-care-will-never-ever-happen/.)
When it comes to the word â€œsocialism,â€ it no longer has the negative connotation previously associated with it. (Article link: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/08/14/democrats-prefer-socialism-capitalism-gallup-poll/988558002/ .)
* * * * *
â€œ, when he is a grouchy, no holds barred nominee, really the exact opposite of authoritarian Trump, but just as unwilling to play ball!â€
What do you mean by â€œplay ballâ€?
Does playing ball mean being a â€œDemocratâ€ who wins the nomination for the presidency; does so in the process by claiming one has bold ideas that are progressive; gets elected to the presidency; and then turns oneâ€™s back on those bold, progressive ideasâ€”which helped that â€œDemocratâ€ win nomination and the general electionâ€”by providing â€œleadershipâ€ on the right? We had that in Bill Clinton. We had that even more in Barack Obama.
* * * * *
â€œUnless we get a FDR 1935â€“36 Congress or a LBJ 1965â€“1966 Congress, NOTHING that Sanders would want will become law!â€
The last four presidential election winnersâ€”Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trumpâ€”won their first-term elections with same-party majorities with both houses of Congress.
After taking office is when they each proved what they were about. Obama, in particular, was about a great marketing campaign (https://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-marketer-year/131810); and, after winning his first election, selling out actual progressives by, for example, having Citibank pick his cabinet (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/10/15/wiki-o15.html); and, for his Affordable Care Act, delivering a health insurance bill with no protection for the consumers as it came with a mandate to buy private health insurance, no competition to the private insurance industry, no re-importation of drugs (for possibly lower prices), and not even the public optionâ€¦and certainly not single payer. Obama did this despite having a 59/60 (the switch from Republican to Democratic party affiliation for Pennsylvaniaâ€™s Arlen Specter and the at-last July 2009 seating of Minnesotaâ€™s Al Franken) numbers count in the U.S. Senate and 250-plus seats in the U.S. House. (Can you imagine what the Republican Party would do with those numbers.) Why? Obama, in December 2012, stated, â€œThe truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican.â€ (Link: https://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/obama-considered-moderate-republican-1980s/story?id=17973080.)
Letâ€™s also recognize the fact that Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump won their first terms as party pickup winners. The presidency flipped to their parties. The Democrats flipped the U.S. House, with the midterm elections of 2018. If the Democrats win a pickup of the presidency in 2020, the House stays in the Democratic column. The U.S. Senate, in which the Democrats head into 2020 with 47 in their caucus, is more a question. But, it is doable. (Especially if we get, say, a 6- to 8-point national shift in the margins in the U.S. Popular Vote.) It has to do with the map. The Democrats would more than likely see Alabama flip Republican. So, instead of +4, to win an outright majority, they would need +5 to reach that new majority of 51 seats. They would get them from the following: Colorado (now regularly with the Democrats); Maine (if the Democrats cared enough to finally field a progressive challenger to try to unseat the overstayed-her-welcome, Republican incumbent Susan Collinsâ€”a state the Democrats should have not one but two U.S. senators!); Arizona (the Democratsâ€™ No. 25 best state in 2016, it is poised to flip to them with the next year the party wins back the presidency); Georgia (the Democratsâ€™ No. 27 best state in 2016, it votes nowadays like Arizona); North Carolina (the Democratsâ€™ No. 26 best state in 2016, it has delivered same-party outcomes, for U.S. President and U.S. Senate, in presidential elections since 1972); and with the potential for Texas (if the state is flipping Democratic for U.S. President, you have to look to it quite possibly following suit with U.S. Senate).
If Bernie Sanders ends up the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee, wins a pickup of the presidency (while unseating Republican incumbent U.S. president Donald Trump), and sees the Democrats retain the U.S. House and also flip the U.S. Senate, we will see how his fellow Democrats operate. I would not be surprised to see a number of themâ€”a reflection of their corruptionâ€”work against delivering Medicare for All and/or $15 per hour and/or free college tuition. But, it would be worth seeing it play out. What would be worth considering, if the same election results happen but with a corporatist (Joe Biden, or anyone else of his ilk), is the following: â€œ[nothing] that [Biden, or some other corporatist] would want will become law!â€ or, for those who think that â€œpragmatismâ€ and â€œincrementalismâ€ are the needed politics, [Biden, or some other corporatist Democrat] would deliver policies on the rightâ€”which sets up yet another round of midterm elections in which Republicans wipe out Democrats by taking over Congress. This would include [Biden, or anyone of his ilk] not delivering on Medicare for All and/or on $15 per hour and/or free college tuition. But, make no mistake, [Biden, or some other corporatist] would deliver on more wars with further increases to the overfunded budget of the military industrial complex while continuing to cater to Wall Street and the financial institutions, the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and the military industrial complex. Yesâ€”that is something corporate Democrats are good at delivering.
* * * * *
â€œI do not see this argument and author as legitimate,â€¦â€
Thomas Piketty is very legitimate.
* * * * *
â€œâ€¦and think a Castro, a Buttigieg, a Klobuchar, is perfectly electable,â€
Julian Castro, Pete Buttigieg, and Amy Klobucharâ€”and you can lump nearly everyone else with them (including the likes of Michael Bennet, Cory Booker, John Delaney, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, John Hickenlooper, Seth Moulton, Beto Oâ€™Rourke, and everyone else possibly trying to help the DNC manipulate their nominating system by turning it over to the superdelegates)â€”are not electable.
Amy Klobuchar proved, in that town hall from the first quarter of 2019, she has nothing to offerâ€”which also means she has no compelling reason to runâ€”and there is no reason to vote her the nomination. She is opposed to Medicare for All. She is opposed to raising minimum wage to $15 per hour. She is opposed to free college tuition. These are the three top domestic issues, now, for the Democrats to be running onâ€”and she opposes them all. By no stretch of oneâ€™s imagination is Amy Klobuchar viable let alone electable? In fact, she comes across like she may as well be running for the Republican nomination. (Others, like Bennett, Hickenlooper, and Moulton are with her.)
As for Castro and Buttigiegâ€”I dismiss them both as well.
Castro got on board for Medicare for All and free college tuition just this year. (In other words: he was getting a sense of the political winds. Article links: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/424289-julian-castro-we-should-do-medicare-for-all-in-this-country and https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/425649-julian-castro-calls-for-tuition-free-public-colleges-apprenticeships.) I congratulate him for that. But, there is none of this on his website: https://www.julianforthefuture.com. So, these issuesâ€”and one to has to win the nomination firstâ€”appear to be not overly important to Julian Castro.
Buttigieg, who is opposed to free college tuition, has been pushed by the Democratic Party Establishment and by their allies in the media. Buttigieg, a corporate Democrat, recently showed us he is not to be trusted. From â€œâ€˜Stop Sandersâ€™ Democrats Are Agonizing Over His Momentâ€ (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-party.html): â€œThe matter of What To Do About Bernie and the larger imperative of party unity has, for example, hovered over a series of previously undisclosed Democratic dinners in New York and Washington organized by the longtime party financier Bernard Schwartz. The gatherings have included scores from the moderate or center-left wing of the party, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California; Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader; former Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia; Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., himself a presidential candidate; and the president of the Center for American Progress, Neera Tanden.â€ (There is more on Pete Buttigieg in the below-linked video.)
I stick with what I wrote from last November: The Democrats will not win back the presidency of the United States without a nominee who trulyâ€”and convincinglyâ€”supports, and is determined to deliver, Medicare for All.
* * * * *
â€œâ€¦and would break another barrierâ€“Latino (largest minority in America), sexuality, or genderâ€“as JFK broke the religion barrier, Carter the Southern barrier (first elected since Zachary Taylor), Clinton, (Sexual Scandal barrier mattering), and Obama the race barrier.â€
None of that ranks most important in the minds of people who are living paycheck to paycheck, drowning in medical bills and/or student debt. They want and need specific policiesâ€”which calls for a vision from a candidate; and it would have to be an authentically progressive candidate (yes, this is applicable to the likes of Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard)â€”regardless of that individualâ€™s demographics. They want to be represented and served. They want better lives. They want to not go into bankruptcy from medical bills and/or college debt. They do not want to have to continue to work two or three jobs. The current economic system, one embraced by corporate Democrats, have failed them.
* * * * *
â€œAll three are younger, particularly Castro and Buttigieg in the same age range as JFK, Clinton, and Obama, and would be inspiring!â€
Do you think people living paycheck to paycheckâ€”nearly 80 percent nationwide (https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2019/01/11/live-paycheck-to-paycheck-government-shutdown/#4c1036d84f10)â€”are focusing on the particular demographics of individual 2020 Democratic presidential candidates before their needs? Do you think that is their No. 1 with deciding for whom to vote the nomination?
They have serious problems.
Castro and Buttigiegâ€”as are the Clintons and Obamaâ€”are corporate Democrats. People will have no problem reading between the lines that are the platitudes of a would-be 2020 Democratic presidential contender (even if nominated), who is a corporatist, the type who made the presidency of Donald Trump possible, as being both hollow and insincereâ€”and they will not back that in the general election.
I stand by my previous assertion that Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbardâ€”due to both having in common the offering of an individual vision and leadership (which can sufficiently win over the voters nationwide)â€”are the only two possible 2020 Democratic presidential candidates with the ability to unseat Donald Trump. (Nominate someone elseâ€¦and it will result in re-election for Trump.)
* * * * *
Here is that video on Pete Buttigieg:
D, we will agree to disagree, as I see Sanders as being termed a “Communist”, which of course he is not, and the word “socialism” drummed into people as evil and dangerous, and leading to a massive defeat if he is the nominee.
At the same time, I think Gabbard has zero chance of being the nominee, and will alienate people with her past embrace of Assad of Syria, and her anti gay background, although she now professes to have changed her views.
But at the end, it will be up to the voters in primaries and caucuses to decide who is the nominee, and I will certainly back whoever it is, even if unhappy with the result, and I hope you will do the same!
Trump’s approval rating is dropping in some red states.
Saw an interview this morning on MSNBC with some truckers and farmers who voted for Trump. They’re souring on him, especially due to his trade wars hurting them.
As we’ve mentioned before, the Medicare For All plans that poll the best are either hybrid plans or plans that gradually lower the age eligibility for Medicare.