HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » nikto » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

nikto

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Home country: USA
Current location: California
Member since: Sat Sep 9, 2006, 07:02 PM
Number of posts: 3,120

Journal Archives

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.

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.



I am so happy that Hillary plans to push a VERY Progressive agenda after her election

I'm sure she'll come thru for Progressives this time, and will prove the skeptics wrong by working super-hard
to be a true Progressive President---Far more Progressive than Bill ever was.

It's going to be fun watching her stand up to the bankers like Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein and
persuade them that they MUST pay higher tax rates, and face new restrictions on some of their riskiest activities.
Hillary has the toughness, smarts, experience and resolve to do this better than anyone else on the US political scene.
And she WILL.

I expect Hillary to be the most progressive president since FDR, and to work tirelessly for the needs
of working people all over the US.

When she tells those big, greedy corporate donors to finally suck-it-up and make
some sacrifices for the majority of the American People, it will be a history-turning moment
for the country, and the Democratic Party, which will be reborn and re-invigorated.

I take her at her word, and I am counting on her to do these things.

GO HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would love to see a re-vitalized, new-millenium version of the New Deal's CCC ...

The CCC was gone by 1942 (WWII drained its manpower and fund$).
But much of its work remains.

We should try to bring it back, bigtime, IMO.

Among its functions, it could build/refurbish/maintain trails like this all over America.
The CCC, re-formed for this era and connected-together with social media and modern high-tech
communications, could be awesome!

It could provide decent jobs (some shorter-term, some longer) for people all over the country,
and protect, maintain and upgrade our Nation's natural treasures for the the present AND future.

That's my view.




Excerpt:

"... the CCC was probably the most popular New Deal program..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps



Here's what remains of CCC work in, just in California ALONE ...
https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=24878

Most Bernie fans will bite the bullet and vote 4 Hillary, **against Trump**

But we also are informed enough to know that after she gets elected, Hillary might make us very sad
by doing things like supporting fracking, changing her mind back on TTP,
and following the Neocons' lead into a war with Russia.

I will confess,
after I give her my vote, if she does those above things and doesn't at least ***fight*** hard
for Progressive change
,
I, and the other Bernie-people who gave her our votes, in trust, may end up forcing a crisis for the party,
because we will threaten to leave.
I pray that does not happen.
I pray we are not betrayed by Hillary and the mainstream Party after (we help her win) the election.

The way I see it, the real crisis for the Democratic Party could be after Hillary wins the election
(assuming she does).

If the Democratic Party violates the trust given them by the millions of Bernie-folks
who voted for her, by going bigtime Neoliberal ib her direction
after the election, the big loser will be the Democratic Party.

In that case, and at that time, the Party will have to choose between
its Progressive wing and the corporatists.

That's not a threat.

It's what will happen if President Hillary does not push hard, post-election, for the Progressive agenda.
Not expecting her to win everything---Just to try sincerely HARD.

But don't worry----The above scenario will only happen if Hillary drops the Progressive ball after the election.


So it really is up to her.

So LBJ is a bigger "hero" than FDR now?

No one says The New Deal was great for everybody, and it is well-known some of its effects were mitigated
by racist southern democrats and others.
African=Americans did get the short end of much of the New Deal, due to the stifling climate of racism back then.
Yeah, FDR should have fought against it harder.
FDR also should not have signed-off on the Japanese Internment, or rejected the German transatlantic liner St. Louis,
with her 1000+ Jews aboard, most of whom ended up dying in concentration camps. (I'm Jewish, so that hurts especially).

FDR also should never have allowed corporate insider Harry Anslinger in his administration, who pushed for the illegalization
of cannabis, destroying the lives of millions via incarceratiion in the decades that followed, for smoking a flower.

But regardless, many of FDR's economic ideas are worth keeping, and adapting and improving, in our era, right now.

So now, instead of admiring what was good about the New Deal, and speculating about *how we could do it better now*,
we get a convenient new "Centrist" narrative
about how great LBJ was, and FDR wasn't really all that hot, etc.

Beware the coded message:
The New Deal wasn't so good after all, and should not be replicated.
A perfect GOP/Conservative/Reaganite opinion.!
And that's a fact, dear deFacto GOPers!

So this is how FDR's acknowledged failure to extend the New Deal properly to African Americans in a racist era
becomes a possible rationale (wait for it) for more corporate-leaning, Conservative fiscal policies (you, know, stuff that ain't the New Deal, maybe even more tax cuts and trade deals like TPP and NAFTA, more for-profit prisons, and other goodies).

Both men did good things, and both men had feet of clay and made some big mistakes.
That would be the realistic way to view history.
But that doesn't support some folks' agendas quite enough, does it?

Sounds like some folks are preparing themselves, after Dem victory, for a
scattering of a few shallow social programs, a bunch of investor-friendly policies and a great BIG war,
under Hillary (maybe Libya can be the new Vietnam under the Neocons, eh?).

That could well turn out to be what happens after 2016 (but I hope not).

This thread seems to me like one big rationalization for what is very possibly to come,
under the expediency of Democratic Party "centrism".
This is how people get led astray, little-by-little.

Sorry, JMO.


But I am really wondering about some of the things I've been reading on DU lately.

If you wanna' know the truth, I find it increasingly creepy.
Again, just MO.

BUT...
It is a fact that Democratic Party "Centrism" (as seen in the 1990s, especially)
tilts decisively towards corporatism. This is measurable and has been documented,
so I'm not going to list the pro-corporate policies that were passed then.
You probably know what they are.
If you don't, then you are not ready to form a respectable opinion on this topic.
Go back and do some reading.
I will respectfuly suggest refrences if you need some guidance.

Dem Centrism = pro-Corporatism.
It is all part of the "slippery slope" towards the corporate state.

Why are so many Democrats blind to this dangerous truth?

Important Info for those who are (some perhaps willfully?) blind on Globalization

The current brand of corporate Globalization is being orchestrated almost entirely by Bankers, investors and Corporate CEOs.
(Duh!)

Globalization has been recognized as an environmental and climate-change threat, worldwide.

Globalization makes countries dependent on the Top 1%, who are using it to control increasing
swaths of the world's economy, maximizing cheap labor, damaging the environment,
destroying labor unions worldwide, privatizing everything in sight (including public institutions),
leaving millions unemployed, destroyng the social contract
in the US and other countries where social programs were once strong and in-favor.

Globalization is transferring wealth from the bottom to the top all over the world.

All these things have been extensively explained and de-constructed by Chomsky,
Chris Hedges, Richard D Wolff and other smart, non-corporatized (i.e. non-biased) observers
and analysts.

TPP is a perfect example of the deception regarding Globalization.

One cannot be an honest, sincere environmentalist, and be for TPP, since TPP
will result in a LOSS of every signing nation's ability to enforce environmental laws
in the face of the *International* corporate tribunal TPP will form to resolve disputes in corporations' favor,
and to the extreme detriment of individual countries' ability to govern themselves
thru their own sovereign laws.

This is unequivocal, and has been known for years.
Globalization is a rigged game, as it now exists.

Eventually, there may be a plan for economic Globalization that is balanced, environmentally sound,
and fair and equitable for The People,
and not just a wealth & power-grab for top elites.

But the current strain of globalization ain't that, by a longshot.

Bam!!

If you could vote on TPP for America like UK voted on Brexit, how would YOU vote?

TPP:

YES
or
NO


????





I will "vote" below.

If all discussion is kept at a level of POLICIES, IDEAS AND LAWS, there should be no problems

Issues to stay focused on:

--The Drug War (i.e. ending it)
--For-profit prisons (i.e. ending them, once and for all)
--Police killings (disproportionally of people of color) and corrective Policies: Body cams, more citizen oversight, cops must be local residents, etc
--Militarization of Police nationally, getting inappropriate surplus military weapons, (stopping this trend)
--Voter suppression (i.e. stopping it)
--need for massive national Infrastructure spending, also creating jobs
--Lower college costs
--protecting and strengthening Social Security and Medicare
--Work towards Single-Payer Healthcare for all
--Keep corporations from shipping out more US jobs




Talk about actual issues.

Anything else (i.e. hysterical demonstrative behavior, emoting over painful issues without considering possible solutions, etc)
is just plain old BS.

Progressivism and Martin Luther King's Legacy are perfectly compatible because both are all about IDEAS.

I completely agree with your statement

It is an incontrovertible fact that many many people judge the validity of an idea by who supports that idea whom they happen to like, rather than actually trying to understand the idea in any kind of objective way.

So we get: "If So-and-so supports it, it's got to be good, so I support it too".


Using popular "leaders" to focus and guide public acceptance of a questionable new policy idea that might actually be a detriment, is the oldest trick in the ruling elites' book.

In fact, that is the entire story of the Reagan administration's success with the American working class,
whom his administration abused terribly and without respite in a series of hurtful policies
that people loved him for regardless.

A similar thing is happening here with Obama and TPP, I'm afraid.

Obama did say he admired the Reagan Presidency (for its effectiveness, I presume).
But with TPP, he's borrowing a POLICY and PHILOSOPHY page as well as a public relations one.

TPP is right out of the neoliberal U of Chicago/Milton Friedman's playbook.
But U of Chicago is Obama's Alma Mater, so maybe it should come as no surprise, eh?
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »