Basically, they are a political propaganda network. Although they may insert some legitimate news stories into their coverage, in the end, they are going to present an opposing view to whatever the Democratic Party and its ally, the "liberal media", might present.
If the Democrats say it is "day", they will report that it is "night". If the Democrats say that Trump is a "racist', they will report otherwise. That may be a legitimate political argument?
But at what point does it conflict with reality so much that people are confused from the opposing representations? They say that they are the ones that are "fair and balanced". But, are they?
For example, when someone says that Donald Trump is a quiet and humane person, that simply does not compute? Reality and facts are important. Very important.
To create stories or narratives to fit a political agenda can create conflicts within the minds of a gullible public. It is not "reporting". It is not "news". It is pure political propaganda.
Most of today's so-called conservatives believe the "conservative revolution" began with Ronald Reagan in 1976, when he challenged Gerald Ford at their convention. When Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter in 1980, they were in hog heaven. And it smelled like a rose garden.
It was finally time to begin their revolt against liberal programs and the liberal Supreme Court. In every election since 1980, they have found reasons to continue to go farther and farther to the right. They had their issues which were set in concrete : abortion, gun rights, tax cuts, defense spending, etc. Each election they became more extreme until they finally crashed the system and were unable to keep their promises to their supporters.
In 2008, they lost their Tea Party supporters. However, with promises of change and demonization of the black guy in the White House, they were able to win back those Tea Party people in 2010 and also captured the House of Representatives by a huge margin, which they still hold.
By 2016, those discontented Republicans deserted the Republican Party in droves to support Donald Trump, who was anything but a "conservative". In fact, he had been supportive of liberal policies and Democratic candidates for many years. When Justice Antonin Scalia died, the "conservative revolution" was in it's death throes.
Bill Clinton came to power in 1992, by defeating GHWB, and by deserting a lot of liberal principles with the promotion of the DLC and their conservative ideas, such as NAFTA and welfare legislation and passage of the TeleCommunications Bill. Clinton and the Democrats in power believed that the Democrats could no longer win by pushing their liberal agenda. Liberals and progressives were pushed aside and told to vote for the candidate that could win the White House.
By 2008, with the nomination of Barack Obama, the DLC was set back to a large degree. He defeated Hillary Clinton to win the Presidency. However, the DLC was still in control of much of the Democratic establishment and Obama continued their trade policies and their defense policies, to a large degree. The first black President was hamstrung, not only by lingering DLC policies, but also, by the obstruction of lingering conservative loyalists. Under the circumstances, he made a lot of progress.
By 2016, Hillary was once again the favorite of the DLC and the Democratic establishment. Bill Clinton was one of her surrogates on the campaign trail. Many of the same supporters from Bill Clinton's presidency came back to help Hillary with her campaign. From the start, she was heavily favored to win the nomination.
But along came Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist, from Vermont. Young supporters from all across the country flocked to his rallies. He became a real threat to Hillary and DLC-supported Democratic establishment. He talked about a free public college education and raising the minimum wage to $15 dollar an hour. He said that we needed to break up the big banks and tax Wall Street speculation. He said we needed to invest in the infrastructure of this country and put millions to work rebuilding our nation.
Just as Donald Trump was the backlash to the Reagan conservative movement of the 1980's, Bernie Sanders was the backlash to the Clinton DLC'ers of the 1990's. No one knows where these movements are going to go but the desire for change is real.
What simple truth can penetrate the wall of division?
I have always believed that somewhere in all of our brains is a small opening that will permit the light to shine in. Somewhere in the brains of even the most right-wing Obama "haters" is a small crack that will permit the truth to enter.
What is that truth? Does it exist in the present environment?
It seems to me to be such a waste of time and effort to keep begging for money so as to keep repeating the same message over and over? I don't believe it inspires more people to go to the polls, but to the contrary, I think it may turn off more voters than it encourages?
Like most folks here, I have been inundated with pleas for contributions, which they will double? If I do not contribute, the loss of the Senate is directly on my shoulders. It is my fault. Now, that is a novel way to fund raise, I must admit.
But, where is the message that can reach the most voters, either to get them to the polls or to make them think twice about who they are voting for?
In my opinion, it is somewhere in the way our government is being run, or not being run, as the case may be. I believe the citizens of this country, the majority of both Democrats and Republicans, are turned off by the gridlock and the poisonous atmosphere of our House and Senate. Even moreso than they might hate Barack Obama.
That is the point that we should focus our message, in my opinion. The Democrats blame McConnell and Boehner for blocking everything. The Republicans blame Harry Reid for holding up all their bills in the Senate. And never the twain shall meet.
The truth of the matter is that McConnell and Boehner are attempting to block everything proposed by this President and the Democrats. Likewise, Harry Reid is not going to put forth the Republican-passed bills that have failed so miserably in the past, like taxcuts for the wealthy, that the President would likely veto anyway. Or the XL pipeline that might threaten the environment and water supply?
In my opinion, this is the cause of most of the voter apathy in this country. How do we break through this wall?
Continuing to contribute to a political process that is addicted to contributions is not the solution. We cannot preach that we are against the vast amounts of money in our political system and then ask for more money to compete against our competition in the same system.
The truth, as I see it, is that there are more Americans that believe Republicans are to blame for the gridlock in Washington than are the Democrats. Most Democrats already believe that. The problem is with the other side. How do you shine that light through that small crack in their brains?
The message, as I see it, should be concise and straight to the point. It should be repeated often enough to be heard by the other side. That message is that it is the Republicans that are mostly to blame for failure of our government in Washington. It is they that refused to work to make the ACA better. It is they that have blocked the minimum wage increase. It is they that have voted against equal pay for women. It is they that have blocked help for student loans. It is they that blocked even the appointment of judges until the rule had to be changed so that the judicial system did not become totally clogged. It is they that have preached hatred for this President and promised their supporters they would do everything possible to make him a one-term President and would use the rules of the Senate to block everything that he might propose. It is they that have even criticized the decisions of the President in foreign policy - the old rule of "politics stop at the water's edge" does not apply to this bunch of Republicans.
So the most concise message is one that confronts the issue head on: "The government in Washington is not serving the people. Republicans are not the ones to fix this problem. Republicans are the ones that caused this problem."
Republican voters must be forced to question their support for this radical and destructive element that has taken over their Party.
Since the time of recorded history, there has been a struggle between the haves and the have nots. The poor have always been with us. And they have always been exploited.
At first, they were captured in war and made slaves. At one time in Greek history, there were a reported 10 slaves for every free man. The work of the world was done by slaves. At the height of the Roman Empire, some people had as many as 10,000 slaves. And most were not African heritage.
The serfs were "free men", in that they were tied to their soil. They worked for the lords that owned the land. All of his labor was unpaid. He had no competition and no fear of being unemployed.
These different systems progressed into the capitalist system, where the worker was "free" to work or not to work . The owners of production were free to let him go at any time. There was no security. Unlike the slave or the serf, the wage worker had political privileges. He agreed to sell his labor for an agreed upon price. Unlike the slave, who was not paid for any of his labor, the wage worker was paid for "some" of his labor. The "surplus value" of his labor went to the owner of the business. This has always been the undefined unfairness of capitalism. However, there has been great progress made since the days of slavery and serfdom.
The owners of production and the elite of our society still control the lives of the majority of Americans that work for a living wage. There is a constant struggle to keep from sliding back into serfdom and slavery. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely is a true statement. Those that are at the bottom in our society have no power. If their children are hungry, they will work for less than the minimum wage if the law permitted.
Just as less and less of our workers are unionized, if the owners of production had their way, no one would be unionized. That is the natural order of wealth and power. Those that are the "have-nots" must continually struggle to get ahead. That is the system that we live in and that we have always have lived in.
Unfortunately, the political Parties have used "labor" for their own political advantage. The Democratic Party has promised that workers will be better off if they are in power. The Republican Party has promised that if we give more and more to those that already have the most, then it will "trickle down" to the rest of society. Believe it or not, some folks actually believe that!. They vote to give themselves less and less, under the illusion that they will someday be part of that powerful 1% that rule this country. Either their brains have not fully developed or they have been brainwashed beyond the point of consciousness?
It is easy to find fault with both political Parties, but it is almost borderline insane to believe some of the stuff that "average" voters swear their allegiance to. So, the struggle continues and becomes more and more difficult, because some people do not realize that they are still slaves. The "Us" vs "Them" is incorrectly seen as a balance of power. That is not the case.
Liberals are bleeding hearts. They tend to believe the best in people.
They believe that people on food stamps need the food. They don't think they are just scamming the government.
They believe that folks getting unemployment checks would prefer a job. They don't think they are lazy and are just laying back watching their favorite TV shows.
They believe that every child should have a good lunch at school. They don't blame the parents if the child comes to school hungry.
They believe that most immigrants are looking for a better life for themselves and their families. They do not believe that they are all criminals or drug mules.
Liberals believe that government should help those in need. They do not believe that government is evil and can do nothing right.
On almost every issue that is debated, liberals give the benefit of the doubt to those that suffer or are in need. They do not vilify or criticize from a superior or unsympathetic position.
At the most basic level, this is the difference in today's political Parties. One has a heart and one does not. Words and rhetoric cannot cover up this most basic human flaw.
The Democratic Party had a chance to keep them in the fold but they blew it.
No amount of threats of Republican takeover will change the direction the Left is going. If the Republicans take over the House, Senate, and the White House, then so be it. The alarm bells no longer work. The fear-mongering from the centrists will fall on deaf ears.
They have not left their Party - their Party has left them.
Most Democrats do not want to hear this and refuse to accept that it will happen. After all, anything is better than having the Republicans in total control. Well, no, it isn't .
It is worse to be deserted by your own Party. It is worse to have your ideals destroyed and replaced by Republican ideals. Winning the next election is no longer the most important thing for these beaten-down supporters of the Democratic Party.
If you think this is only a lone voice expressing dissatisfaction with the Party and , in the end, we will all unite behind Hillary to keep the White House, I think you are tragically mistaken.
The Democratic Left will either take back the Democratic Party or they will start their own Party. They will suffer no more under the illusion of being represented by the Democratic politicians in Washington.
I'm sorry I feel compelled to say this.
Putin and Obama may hate each others guts? But you can bet that both have their "interests" involved in this Syrian deal. They are not doing it because they are "friends".
I can't help but think that Obama is going against some very strong pro-war "interests"? They would prefer that he make the decisions all by himself, without Congress, and bomb the hell out of Syria so they can make more bombs and make more money. But Obama seems to be going against the grain, in my opinion.
He seems to be thinking of his legacy? He has mentioned constitutional reasons for taking the issue to Congress. This is not politics as usual, with Presidents making decisions about going to war all on their own. If he can pull this off in Syria, it will be a big part of his legacy. And he will piss off a lot of influential "interests".
However, the pro-war devils are whispering in his ear at all times. They have grown accustomed to having their way with the Presidents. They do not want him to go to the UN. They do not trust the UN. They do not want a peaceful resolution to the crisis. They would prefer another war.
Putin, on the other hand, is the ultimate pragmatist and realist. He believes Obama will carry thru with his threat to bomb Syria. He knows that Syria does not have the means to defend itself against the modern American weapons. Also, he knows that Assad has been weakened immensely by his war with the "rebels". He understands that Russia could lose one of its oldest allies in that part of the Middle East. It is in his "interest" to negotiate. If he can give up the chemical weapons but keep Assad in power and keep Syria intact, then it would be a victory for him. He is negotiating for survival of Syria as an ally of Russia.
Sun Tzu said, "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster."
After all, he was a constitutional scholar before he was a politician. Many of his supporters always expected him to adhere to the Constitution in which he was so well-schooled. That is why many supported his decision to send the Syria "question" to the Congress because it is the way our Constitution meant for questions of war to be handled.
The War Powers Act had done nothing but give our Presidents excuses to use our military in whatever way they saw fit, even for personal or political reasons, as with the capture of Noriega and going to war with Saddam Hussein. Remember, "He tried to kill my Daddy"?
We have been at war constantly and will continue to be at war constantly so long as the President, whichever Party, can declare on his own when to send troops into battle. Before, it had always been the responsibility of our Congress and should return to the way our founders intended.
This is the destiny of Barack Obama. He can once again return our government and our military back to its constitutional foundation. That would be quite a legacy. And that is what his life has been about up 'til now.
But, he is being pulled away from his conscience and his destiny and toward the siren song of the war mongers. Will he listen to his conscience? Will he follow our Constitution? Will he engage our allies before he unilaterally involves us in another war? The President is at a crossroads. He will choose the path of his destiny or he will continue to lead our nation down the road to ruin....
...there was a great country.
Their citizens had jobs and they worked. They labored long and hard.
And they had food and shelter. They had respect. They were happy in life.
Then one day a dark prince rode into the village. He hitched his horse to a post and went in to see the little shoemaker. "Can you fix the soles on my boots", he asked the little fellow? "I sure can! And do it at a good price, too", the shoemaker said.
But the dark prince saw that he could get those boots fixed at a better price in that country over the oceans. There would be so much more profit left after the job was done. And he shipped the little fellow's job over the seas.
And he and his friends did it with the carpet makers and they did it with the dressmakers and with whomever they could make a profit. Soon, these people had nothing to do. They were not happy. They were just a number.
The great country had lost its respect. The little people, the farmers and the general store owners, were very patriotic toward their country. They did not like that the dark prince and his friends had taken their jobs and left such a sadness.
The people gathered in the middle of their villages and discussed the problem. They knew they had to change it. They knew that when people lost their jobs, they lost their respect. They were not happy and their families were unhappy also.
But the dark prince and his friends were not accepting of any suggestions from the little people.
They had divided the countryside into redshirts and blueshirts and they seldom talked with each other like they did in the old days. They had the power and they were not going to give it up.
So, the little folks grew restless. They wanted their country to be great again. So the redshirts began talking to the blueshirts and the blueshirts said, "Why are we wearing these stupid shirts?"
And they united and defeated the dark prince and his friends that had made the great country so unhappy.
In my opinion, we absolutely do.
Simply because technology has advanced to the degree that it has, with Internet, Facebook, email, cell phones, etc, does not in any way take away any person's right to privacy.
We did not give up our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms simply because guns became far more advanced than our founders ever imagined. Neither should we give up our 4th Amendment rights because technology has become advanced to the point that it makes it easy for the government or other individuals to spy on us or to invade our privacy.
It is not just our responsibility to protect our privacy. It is the responsibility of others not to invade our privacy. Just as you cannot put secret cameras in a hotel room to peep on customers, you cannot listen to others' phone calls or read their emails, or sell their information without their permission. Simply because technology allows you to do it does not make it legal or right.
It is absolutely wrong to say that you no longer have a right to privacy. You have just as much a right to privacy today as you did before the newest technology became available. Those that would use this technology for such purposes should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. They have no right to collect information that is personal to you. Technology does not change that one iota.
My hope is that someday we will see this tried before the Supreme Court.
Some of the oldest advice we might find, when we are looking for someone with a motive for doing something wrong or illegal, is to "follow the money". Who has the most to gain and who has the most to lose?
As far as we know, Edward Snowden has not received any great compensation for blowing the whistle on the spying program of the NSA. He gave up a good paying job and a good life in Hawaii and may be in custody at any moment. Except to satisfy his personal narcissism, it is difficult to see where he benefits?
But the NSA has a lot to lose. The Agency is presently receiving about $80 billion per year from the taxpayers of this country. They work closely with the Carlyle Group, who have been involved in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East for several decades. They, in turn, contract their work out to folks like Booz-Allen, whom Snowden was employed with until this earth-shaking incident.
It is an incestuous relationship whereby officers of Booz-Allen and others work their way into the NSA and then, after they built up their infrastructure of connections within the government, they then move back into the contracting business, and one of their friends then move back into the leadership of the NSA.
Over the last 25 years, we have seen the Carlyle Group, under the leadership of Cap Weinberger, and with folks like George HW Bush on their Board, receive much of the government payola. They were also the parent company of Booz-Allen.
But the "war on terror" brought new opportunities for these contractors. With the assistance of John Poindexter, a computer information analyst from the Reagan Administration, they created the Total Information Awareness program. They wanted to "own the Internet".
So there was money to be made with the new "war on terror". Eventually they would be able to collect information on everyone. They would be able to catch the terrorists before they were able to act by connecting all the information. They received more and more government largesse. Their payroll got larger and larger as they hired more and more analysts, like Snowden.
But they could not produce the results that they promised. The centerpiece of their several years of spying and collecting information was the capture of the NYC subway bomber. But even that is under question. They have little to show for all the money they have received.
Naturally, they want to keep that money coming in. More than national security, it is about personal wealth for the cadre of political scam artists that gather government contracts. The fact that they were such a failure is the biggest secret of all.
Edward Snowden had very little "real" intelligence to give anyone. Phone numbers and email addresses and Internet communications were not as valuable as they thought for intelligence gathering. But the money they made from collecting this information was very valuable.
That is the secret they did not want exposed. Many in the NSA and the contracting business stand to lose a lot of money if the truth is known. This whole episode is not about national security. It is about scamming the American taxpayers. That is why everything is a secret. That is what Edward Snowden has exposed.
As Republicans stroll along the streets singing about the evils of "big government", it has never been more obvious that we need our "government" to fix the massive problem with unemployment in this country. We do not need that many unemployed. Why should we care?
People need jobs because jobs can add meaning to their lives. But let's face the truth: The private sector is not going to fix our roads, they are not going to re-build our bridges. They are not going to repair our infrastructure on their own. It's just too big of a job to undertake. That is why we have to have government take the lead in rebuilding our infrastructure.
But, of course, the government can do nothing if the private sector is not involved. For example, if there is a bridge that needs repaired or built, the government does not stop people on the street and ask if they "know how to build a bridge"??
Government goes to the existing private sector, including small construction companies, and take bids for the jobs that need to be done. The private sector benefits from their work and their hiring others to work for them. Government leads but government is not taking the profit from the infrastructure that benefits us all. That is how government serves us all, regardless of your Party affiliation.
If we were to maintain a workforce of 100 million workers who paid $20 per week in FICA taxes (contributions) out of each paycheck, that would mean $2 billion dollars per week would go into the Social Security Trust Fund. (I am only using this as an example because the numbers are quite a bit higher)
So, if we were paying $2 billion per week, that would equal $104 billion dollars per year into the Social Security Trust Fund. That is a lot of money. It is not going to go broke so long as the workers continue to pay into it. The worst scenario would be that the benefits would have to be cut if it ran into a shortfall. Or it would need to be changed in some small way to meet its needs.
The point being that Social Security is not going broke and cannot go broke so long as workers pay into it. The only way it could go broke is if we stop paying those taxes and say that we are going to pay for it out of the "general fund". The "general fund" is always at the discretion of the politicians in power. They can spend it on whatever they desire. This is the danger in the "payroll tax cut".
Bottom line, Social Security is one of the greatest programs ever created and gives workers and citizens an independence from the capitalists and the conservatives in government that despise the program. We should protect it at all costs.
Wasn't that a royal screwing of the American people?
If we traced our present economic problems back to its roots, we will probably find that they began with the free trade treaties. We were led to believe that getting everything produced overseas would somehow help the workers of this country? Were we morons or what??
The most obvious consequence of these trade treaties was that it drove the price of labor down in this nation. It drove the profits up of those that chose to make their products in China and elsewhere. And the biggest problem we face at this time is not necessarily the debt we owe these nations because we do not have the tax base to pay for our programs anymore, but rather, the impact it has had on jobs and wages. Something has to change.
We have become a nation for the few, rather than the many. We all must now sacrifice for the good of the top 1%, the so-called "job creators". They are not job creators but capitalist profiteers. More than 60% of all jobs created in this country are by smaller businesses. The top 1-2% of income earners do not create jobs. Over 96% of them only create wealth for themselves. Something is wrong with this picture??
Under the guise of saving the SS system, FICA taxes were raised on workers wages during the "big fix" of Social Security by Ronald Reagan. The wealthy were content to let the workers pay for all the programs we needed, including a defense department with a voracious appetite. But, when companies were moving overseas and we were losing jobs here, the SS fund started to shrink. In kind, the deficits went up proportionally to the number of unemployed.
We have now come to a meeting of the minds. In less than a dozen years, we went from a balanced budget to over-whelming debt. There are so many loopholes nobody can count them. We have a useless, and mostly destructive Congress to block anything that might be proposed. We have really screwed the pooch with this Congress.
So the decision is ours. Do we want a country for the few or do we want a country for the many? The time is now to make that decision. We hope the Democratic Party will be up to the task? But many of us have our doubts. Nobody seems ready to tackle these problems?
I hate to sound too negative but that is the way I see it...
Democrats blame George W Bush and his policies for most of our economic problems that we are enduring today. And he deserves much of the blame.
However, when we dig deeper, we can see the true culprits. Yes, the policies of Ronald Reagan were responsible to a large degree, also.
But the true cretins in all that we have experienced for the last 12 years is the US Supreme Court and Antonia Scalia, more specifically.
It was they that took the votes away from the people, because they did not trust the Democrats in Florida to count the votes accurately. They did not want to count the votes. Instead, they (Supremes) took it upon themselves to give the election to George W Bush. And this country has been going downhill ever since.
It is Antonia Scalia that has brow-beaten every conservative on the Court into doing his bidding. He is a bully which none of them dare to stand up to. He, more than anyone else, is responsible for putting George W Bush into office in 2001.
They inherited a balanced budget and a 4.1% unemployment rate and a projected surplus for as far as the eye could see. They even projected a balanced budget in the year 2012. Today. Now. But Bush and the Republicans said, "It's not the government's money, it's the people's money" and proceeded to give away the entire surplus plus everything that was projected to be a surplus in the future, to those at the very top. They called it "trickle-down". It has decimated our country to the point where we many never fully recover. At least, there will be few dollars for the social programs that might be needed in the future.
Add in 9/11, two unpaid wars, an expensive giveaway to the drug companies in Medicare "reform", $4 trillion in tax cuts, stock market crash, unemployment skyrocketing, and we get Barack Obama as President.
But it was not Ronald Reagan that put George W Bush into office. George W Bush was an ignorant chimp and he acted the part. But the real culprit for where we are today is the US Supreme Court and Antonia Scalia most specifically.
Just my historical opinion.
The ten most recent threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums.
Vanity Fair warned America a year ago (10/2015) about allowing Trump to being taken seriously
By Divine Discontent
Why FOX News is poisonous to our discourse?
So, do you think the GOP will eventually boot Dangerous Donny?
By Divine Discontent
Donald Trump Eats KFC With a Fork and Knife (Late Show with Colbert)
By Divine Discontent
TRUMP JUST FLAT OUT SAYS "AHHH! TO HELL WITH IT, I DIDN'T REALLY WANT TO BE PRESIDENT!"
By Divine Discontent
The Reagan and Clinton Backlash.
FANS LINE UP IN HAVANA FOR FREE ROLLING STONES GOOD FRIDAY CONCERT
By Divine Discontent
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Today's Featured Forums