HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » yurbud » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 64 Next »

yurbud

Profile Information

Member since: Sun Jul 11, 2004, 07:58 PM
Number of posts: 37,821

Journal Archives

How could we "take" Iraq's oil without committing genocide?

Bush seemed to be aiming for this when he pumped oil without metering it for a while, and pushed a hydrocarbon law on Iraqis that would have given 88% of their oil income to oil companies via production sharing agreements.

While the prime minister and his cabinet supported the law, the parliament wouldn't vote for it because their people might notice that they gave away their biggest national asset.

Even a dictator like Saddam could only go so far in pissing off his people before he would be overthrown.

Therefore, if Trump wants to "take" their oil, he would have to kill a large percentage of the people who oppose the taking, democratically or otherwise.

Also, looting violates the Geneva Convention.

How long will Trump be in office?

His unhinged behavior, sloppiness, and absolute lack of preparation or background knowledge makes it seems like his time in office may not end in a four or eight year increment.

I wonder what other people think though.

If GOP ends or at least kneecaps Obamacare, what stops CA from doing single payer?

Or some other state level improvement?

I recall that the state legislature passed single payer a couple of times when Arnie was governor, only to see him veto it.

Once Jerry Brown was in office, state Dems said to hold off to give Obamacare time to work.

Work or not, Republicans are taking the machetes to it, so California ought to set the example of how to replace it AND show what Democrats will (or at least should) do if they regain control of Congress and eventually the White House.

Does opposition to Betsy DeVos mean Dems are going to stop supporting privatization of public ed?

While Democratic politicians have opposed vouchers, they have gone along with most of the rest of that agenda driven by hedge fund managers, and some wealthy individuals and their foundations.

If they are doing a 180 on this, I applaud and support them.

It wouldn't hurt to explicitly say that their past support of that agenda was wrong, and they are firmly on the side of PUBLIC public education, driven by the needs of students and the best academic research on what helps them (NOT from foundations selling something).

This could energize educators in some of the states Hillary barely lost, who then might help to take back the statehouses and governor's mansions lost to the GOP by echoing their privatization agenda.

TOON: Trump's Healthcare Plan



From Daily Kos

Seen on Reddit: a new name for GOP: CRPT--Cut Rich People's Taxes (pronounced CRyPT)

This guy should get a campaign consultant job.

We call them the GOP, for the Grand Old Party. However, I'd would rather like to call them the CRPT (pronounced "crypt"--the association with death and decay being a very deliberate one) to stand for Cut Rich People's Taxes.

Perhaps a rallying cry could be "Let's keep our country out of the CRyPT!" or something of the like.

After all, there's nothing so consistent about the Republican Party's agenda in the past 30 years as their desire to cut taxes for the rich, so let's call a spade a spade and make it harder for them to throw a smokescreen over it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/progressive/comments/5na0dn/ive_come_to_believe_more_and_more_that_the_right/

DAVE LINDORFF: Real Russian Threat--invading or trading with neighbors?

Why would Russia be planning to invade their neighbors when they are investing heavily in trade infrastructure with Europe, which likely would want nothing to do with them if they invaded other countries?

The realpolitik of what's going on with Russia is our government doesn't want to see the economic integration of Eurasia from China to Europe that make the US a regional power without the ability to control and profit from the largest landmass on Earth.

Henry Kissinger, now a Trump advisor, thinks we can break that up by turning Russia against China while Democrats seem to want put Russia in the doghouse (but apparently still demonize China too).

The reality is sanctions, covert action, and even wars don't change the course of history--they just delay or accelerate it.

We fought two wars in the 20th century to keep Germany from being the dominant economic power in Europe and won both.

Today, Germany calls the shots in Europe (albeit as our junior partner for now).

America "lost" the Vietnam War. Today, they make our Nikes for 50 cents an hour.

We can slow down the integration of Eurasia for a few years or even decades, but at what cost to us and them in lives and wealth?

And what will it gain the average American?

At the height of the British Empire, the average Brit was working sixteen hours a day, seven days a week, living in filthy slums.

We are at peak empire right now and how is that helping average Americans?

Most people here know Nazi leader Hermann Goering's quote about how to gin up a war, but fewer know what he prefaced it with:

"Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?"

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp


Those who are selling conflict with Russia do not have the best interest of average Americans at heart.

And before someone bothers to call me a Putin or Trump lover, corporate Democrats have agreed with Republicans on far more and far more damaging issues than me from privatizing public education to starting unnecessary wars.

Democrats have one, maybe two elections to get their shit together and be a real opposition party to the Republicans.

Demonizing Russia and anyone who doesn't do the same is a recipe for beating the GOP to the ash heap of history.


This is all by way of getting to a larger point. The hysteria about Russian hacking of the US election an action which while it might have happened, is by no means proven is a meaningless diversion, because there is no evidence at all that Russia is an aggressive nation. While the US is moving Abrams battle tanks and nuclear-capable mobil artillery up close to the Russian border in the waning days of the Obama administration, forcing Russia to respond by beefing up its own national border defenses, no one could argue seriously that Russia and its leader Vladimir Putin, have any interest whatsoever in invading any country of Europe, however small and weak.

What possible advantage could come to Russia from such an action? Even if Russia could succeed in invading Poland and grabbing a piece of that country, or invading one of the Baltic countries that were former Soviets, such an action would make developing trade relations with the rest of Europe impossible, and would force Russia to engage in a costly occupation which it can ill afford.

Why, one has to ask, would Russia be building, with up to $100 billion in Chinese financing, a bunch of super high-speed rail lines from eastern China and eastern Siberia all the way to rail hums in Germany and other European countries, to facilitate vastly expanded trade overland, if it were also secretly planning to conquer and occupy parts of Europe again, as it did in the pre-1990 era?

A cynic or realist might suspect that it is precisely this goal of economic integration of Europe and Asia, with Russia at the center, which lies at the root of US antipathy and hostility towards both Russia and China.
If the US continues to cling to the insane, megalomaniacal idea of maintaining strategic dominance military and economic at all costs over all current and potential rivals around the globe, there is a certain logic to trying to ruin this grand plan for economic convergence on the Eurasian continent.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/11/democratic-hysteria-on-russia/

Why would they threaten Eastern Europe when US alone has a military 5 times bigger?

TOON: Dems stategize for 2020



http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/28/1614978/-Cartoon-The-Democratic-Party-s-path-to-victory

Will DU return to a transparent jury process with comments?

If you want moderators to have veto power over the jury, you could still make allowances for that.

The secret jury process can make the outcome look like a thumb is on the scale even when it is not.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 64 Next »