REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Progressive Left

POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Thursday, June 6, 2019 16:02
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 652
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, May 11, 2019 2:38 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I've heard of this guy...I may have heard him speak before this, but it all makes sense to me now.



Sometimes you just have to stop the merry-go-round, get off and listen.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 11, 2019 7:33 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


So what's your takeaway from it?

I don't know too much about Noam except for a few things of his I've read before, and Jimmy Dore practically idolizes him. I've agreed with everything that Dore has said that Chomsky has had to say about things that he's talked about.

Wouldn't it be funny if we both watched this video and were on the same page?

16 minutes isn't that long. I'll try to remember to give it a watch before I go to sleep for the day.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 11, 2019 1:04 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Noam Chomsky is a very smart guy (progressive atomization, manufactured consent), but he missed a critical point. Or two.

I agree that the Democratic Party abandoned the working class in the 1970s OR EVEN EARLIER.* That means, btw, that ALL BILL CLINTON'S AND OBAMA'S MAJOR POLICIES WERE AGAINST AMERICAN WORKING PEOPLE. I think it's time you took those fuckers down off those pedestals where you placed them, and recognize that the offshoring of American jobs, the repeal of Glass Steagall, and bailouts to the banks cast the DNC FIRMLY in the hands of the ultra-wealthy global financialists. That was the genesis of the Occupy Movement. Remember the Occupy Movement? IN REALITY, the Democratic Party offers no alternative to working Americans because its soul belongs to the banks.

However, while the GOP relies on social issues and its own version of identity politics to maintain its base, TRUMP DID NOT WIN JUST THE GOP BASE BUT ALSO INDEPENDENTS AND SOME DEMOCRATS.

Why is that? An analysis that misses that point and which relies solely on white Xtian/ Southern strategy explanation for Trump's election misses roughly 30% of Trump voters.

I think there is an important point which the follow-up discussion points to, and that is that Trump was a PROTEST VOTE. He not only appealed to the GOP evangelical base, he appealed to people who were fed up with "more of the same". People threw up on the idea of "more of the same", and with good reason, since - under Obama- all of that "growth" was going to the top 1%.

But they BOTH miss Trump's biggest backers, and who his policies really benefit, and that is national manufacturers and businesses (Oh, and Israel). Yes, Trump's tax cuts benefit "the wealthy" but it is NOT the same "wealthy" that the Democrats benefitted.

Think about that for a bit.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 21, 2019 6:47 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Honestly, I'm still digesting, but my initial reaction is that he does make sense. Intelligent, articulate and as factual as any in his position.

I'll need to watch it over again. And yes, wouldn't it be funny if we agreed for a split.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
So what's your takeaway from it?

I don't know too much about Noam except for a few things of his I've read before, and Jimmy Dore practically idolizes him. I've agreed with everything that Dore has said that Chomsky has had to say about things that he's talked about.

Wouldn't it be funny if we both watched this video and were on the same page?

16 minutes isn't that long. I'll try to remember to give it a watch before I go to sleep for the day.

Do Right, Be Right. :)


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 21, 2019 8:10 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Yes, Chomsky is intelligent and he pretty much nailed it, according to the question he was asked.


Quote:

I agree that the Democratic Party abandoned the working class in the 1970s OR EVEN EARLIER.* That means, btw, that ALL BILL CLINTON'S AND OBAMA'S MAJOR POLICIES WERE AGAINST AMERICAN WORKING PEOPLE. I think it's time you took those fuckers down off those pedestals where you placed them, and recognize that the offshoring of American jobs, the repeal of Glass Steagall, and bailouts to the banks cast the DNC FIRMLY in the hands of the ultra-wealthy global financialists. That was the genesis of the Occupy Movement. Remember the Occupy Movement? IN REALITY, the Democratic Party offers no alternative to working Americans because its soul belongs to the banks.


You seem to be hung up on this Clinton/Obama thing. Ok, they were horrible, horrible people. Now, that we have that out of the way, let's move on to the topic at hand.

Quote:

However, while the GOP relies on social issues and its own version of identity politics to maintain its base, TRUMP DID NOT WIN JUST THE GOP BASE BUT ALSO INDEPENDENTS AND SOME DEMOCRATS.


Now, this statement here, wow! everybody knows this. This is not something
new. Let's move on.

Quote:

Why is that? An analysis that misses that point and which relies solely on white Xtian/ Southern strategy explanation for Trump's election misses roughly 30% of Trump voters.


He did ramble on a little, but you don't agree with his synopsis because he didn't go into the "protest" vote analysis?

Quote:

I think there is an important point which the follow-up discussion points to, and that is that Trump was a PROTEST VOTE. He not only appealed to the GOP evangelical base, he appealed to people who were fed up with "more of the same". People threw up on the idea of "more of the same", and with good reason, since - under Obama- all of that "growth" was going to the top 1%.


And yet today we have more of the same, as he pointed out in his analysis.
Only difference now is that the growth is going to the even smaller percentage of wealthy individuals and corporations.

Quote:

But they BOTH miss Trump's biggest backers, and who his policies really benefit, and that is national manufacturers and businesses (Oh, and Israel). Yes, Trump's tax cuts benefit "the wealthy" but it is NOT the same "wealthy" that the Democrats benefitted.


So, Trump's backers are different than Clinton/Obama's backers. I don't see any difference, if it's as you say there shouldn't be. All back wealthy and
they do so by shafting workers. Explain how this is so.

Let me say this: I know of a handful of corporations that knowingly help the
working class. Ben & Jerry's at one time were very positive role models as
a corporate entity, also the Greek Yogurt King, of Chobani yogurt. There
were a couple of others in past years, but I really don't remember their names. So maybe in that sense, this is what you mean.

Chomsky is an interesting fellow and approaches topics very minimally, and surgically pinpoints his point and view within the issue at hand. I like that.
I like that he rarely, if at all, interjects "politics" into his analysis.
He seems to be very factually driven.




Despite what you might think, I have given it some thought. I always do.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 21, 2019 1:07 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


SHINY, you can skip everything down to the asterisks. That's where I make my main pooint, and I don't want it to get buried in sideways issues.
Quote:

Yes, Chomsky is intelligent and he pretty much nailed it, according to the question he was asked. SGG

I agree that the Democratic Party abandoned the working class in the 1970s OR EVEN EARLIER.* That means, btw, that ALL BILL CLINTON'S AND OBAMA'S MAJOR POLICIES WERE AGAINST AMERICAN WORKING PEOPLE. I think it's time you took those fuckers down off those pedestals where you placed them, and recognize that the offshoring of American jobs, the repeal of Glass Steagall, and bailouts to the banks cast the DNC FIRMLY in the hands of the ultra-wealthy global financialists. That was the genesis of the Occupy Movement. Remember the Occupy Movement? IN REALITY, the Democratic Party offers no alternative to working Americans because its soul belongs to the banks.- SIGNY

You seem to be hung up on this Clinton/Obama thing. Ok, they were horrible, horrible people. Now, that we have that out of the way, let's move on to the topic at hand. - SGG

You seem to be hung up on Trump. There are a lot of things that Trump does that are worrisome - like his budget deficit and his apparent capture by his neocon advisors - but IN REALITY he has started no new wars (so far) and has not managed to destablize any more nations (so far, altho he's working on Venezuela, Iran, and Turkey. His failure to fully overthrow these nations - so far- is based on his reluctance to use the formal military when CIA/hybrid/proxy/spec ops have failed.) Despite Obama's and Clinton's smooth words, and GWB's akward ones, they all followed the same destructive path. Furthermore, the Democratic Party has NEVER been for the "working class", not even FDR. FDR introduced safety nets to keep CAPITALISTS safe, otherwise there would have been a revolution. The DNC has never backed worker's empowerment.

So, enough of the Democratic Party and the DNC.

Quote:

However, while the GOP relies on social issues and its own version of identity politics to maintain its base, TRUMP DID NOT WIN JUST THE GOP BASE BUT ALSO INDEPENDENTS AND SOME DEMOCRATS.- SIGNY

Now, this statement here, wow! everybody knows this.- SGG

Not Chomsky. If he did he would have said something about it. His analysis is significantly incomplete and relies on the identity politics of the "Southern Strategy" to explain Trumps' win. Kind of like SECOND and REAVERBOT constantly riding the hobby-horse of "racism". If they believe that "racism" is the only problem, they won't look for other solutions.
Quote:

This is not something new. Let's move on. =SGG
Ok, I don't mean to beat this point to death.

Quote:

Why is that? An analysis that misses that point and which relies solely on white Xtian/ Southern strategy explanation for Trump's election misses roughly 30% of Trump voters.- SIGNY

He did ramble on a little, but you don't agree with his synopsis because he didn't go into the "protest" vote analysis? - SGG

Already addressed, above.

Quote:

I think there is an important point which the follow-up discussion points to, and that is that Trump was a PROTEST VOTE. He not only appealed to the GOP evangelical base, he appealed to people who were fed up with "more of the same". People threw up on the idea of "more of the same", and with good reason, since - under Obama- all of that "growth" was going to the top 1%.- SIGNY

And yet today we have more of the same, as he pointed out in his analysis.
Only difference now is that the growth is going to the even smaller percentage of wealthy individuals and corporations. - SGG

But we DON'T have "more of the same" and that's why liberals, neoliberals, the media, and establishment deep-staters are screaming.

Why? What is it about Trump's policies that have all of these well-established groups howling with outrage? THAT is what Trump is doing ... or is promising to do ... differently. Until we figure that out, we won't understand Trump's real effects.

*****

Quote:

But they BOTH miss Trump's biggest backers, and who his policies really benefit, and that is national manufacturers and businesses (Oh, and Israel). Yes, Trump's tax cuts benefit "the wealthy" but it is NOT the same "wealthy" that the Democrats benefitted. - SIGNY

So, Trump's backers are different than Clinton/Obama's backers. I don't see any difference, if it's as you say there shouldn't be. All back wealthy and they do so by shafting workers. Explain how this is so.

Let me say this: I know of a handful of corporations that knowingly help the
working class. Ben & Jerry's at one time were very positive role models as
a corporate entity, also the Greek Yogurt King, of Chobani yogurt. There
were a couple of others in past years, but I really don't remember their names. So maybe in that sense, this is what you mean.- SGG



This is my main point. All of the wealthy screw the workers, and they (mostly)do it through the corporate structure, not as individuals. In that sense, they're all the same. The difference is WHOSE RULES GOVERN CORPORATE BEHAVIOR AND WHERE THEY WILL BE ADJUDICATED. I know that probably sounds kind of wonkish but please bear with me and follow my logic.

IF a corporation in the USA spews pollution over a neighborhood, or steals worker's pay, or launders money, or sells contaminated medication they are subject to American regulations and laws. In this case, various state and/or Federal agencie ... county and state environmental agencies and the EPA, departments of labor, the SEC, or the FDA can step in a cite/fine/jail bad actors. If the corporation chooses to fight the issue it will be decided in an American court referencing American laws, sometimes all the way up to the Supreme Court (which happened to the agency where I used to work.) As a retired environmental regulator, I've been in many agency hearings, cooperated with our county DA, and contributed to the rulemaking process which was all done in many consuling meeings and open hearings. so I know quite a bit about the rule=amking, rule-enorcement, and appeals process.

But what happens if the USA signs a trade deal, and the rules are written, in secret, by industry representatives? What happens if one of he provisions prohibits interference with normal and expected profits? What happens when one of the provisions mandates that disputes be settled outside of the signatory nations, but in a secret trade tribunal instead?

What if a city writes a regulation limiting carbon-intensive fuels, which blocks Canadian tar-sand products from being sold within its jurisdiction? What happens if a nation writes a plain-packaging regulation to reduce cigarette sales/improve public health? What happens if a state wants to label GMOs, or limit glyphosate in food? What happens if these regulations interfere with normal and expected corporate profits? What if a corporation sues a city, or a nation? what if these nations, states, counties and cities are bound by this trade treaty? what happens if all of this is decided in, say, Singapore where their democratically-controlled laws and regulations are struck down?
Who do they appeal to?
The UN???

That is what happens under GLOBALIST policies. Globalism (which benefits transnationals) which the DNC endorses is very much like the EU: Rules are made and regulations are written that are completely out of control of the member nations. They may be good rules, or bad rules, or sideways rules (like the mandated size and thickness of toilet seats, I kid you not) but the member states have no democratic input or appeals to any of them.

Every environmental, labor, product safety hope that you might have would be subject to these transnational regulations and there would be no appeal.

I admit that the United States has a case of "regulatory capture", but if our system of regulations and our courts were so completely ineffective, there would never have been a need to concoct these trade deals. The trade deals that the Clintons and Obama and the Bushes posed removed even the THEORETICAL prospect of democratic input.

That brings up the concept of nationalism and sovereignty generally. When a nation has no control of its borders, its currency, econmic policies, laws and regulations, and these are all placed in the hands of some non-democratic entity like trade tribunals or the UN (did YOU vote for any of those representatives?? Yeah, me neither.) what happens to democracy?

Centralization ("integration") always leads to greater and greater loss of self-determintion and agency.

I could go on about Trotskyists and Marxists and centralization, but this is where I stop for today.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 21, 2019 6:44 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


To summarize (whew!) while a centralized government such as the United States can do much good- Medicare for all, reducing carbon dioxide emissions in ways that starts and individuals can't, for example- it can do much harm, like obliterating the world in a nuclear flash.

The further away that power to control goes, the more important it becomes to ask the question: Who controls the controllers?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 21, 2019 8:06 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
To summarize (whew!) while a centralized government such as the United States can do much good- Medicare for all, reducing carbon dioxide emissions in ways that starts and individuals can't, for example- it can do much harm, like obliterating the world in a nuclear flash.

The further away that power to control goes, the more important it becomes to ask the question: Who controls the controllers?

Signym, when nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, how much control do you think American voters had over General Curtis LeMay and Truman? The answer is zero control. How much control did even LeMay and Truman have in building the nukes? Zero, again. Who was in control? It wasn’t Einstein the avowed pacifist, but he urged FDR to fund the devastating weapon. Congress didn’t know what they were funding when they paid for the Manhattan Project. Signym, you won’t find the will of the majority of American voters anywhere in the process of killing Japanese civilians with nukes. The voters knew nothing. Signym, who controls the controllers?
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/06/nuclear-weapons-atom-bomb-
einstein-genius-science
/

From his headquarters on Guam in the South Pacific, at 2 p.m. on August 5, General LeMay, who had overseen the recent firebombing of Japan’s important industrial cities, gave the final go-ahead for the 509th wing to fly the secret mission the following day—August 6.

Only recently had LeMay learned of the bomb. A special messenger had flown to his headquarters on Guam to brief him. “I didn’t know much about this whole thing and didn’t ask about it, because it was so hot,” LeMay recorded. “Didn’t wish to have any more information than it was necessary for me to have.” He had orders as to the first bomb’s primary target: Hiroshima.

No event has had more import than this first atomic bombing, and no historical figure has been associated with this bomb more than Harry Truman, who commanded his military to use the new weapon less than four months after taking office. In this exclusive excerpt of The Accidental President—a new book covering the first four months of the Truman administration—we observe Truman aboard the USS Augusta, on his way home from the Potsdam Conference in Soviet-occupied Germany as the bombers gunned for Hiroshima and after, when the President learned that the Manhattan Project was, in his words, “a terrible success.”
www.history.com/news/the-inside-story-of-harry-truman-and-hiroshima

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 21, 2019 10:29 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


SECONDRATE: If the American public has so little control, why does the deep state work so hard to lie us into war? Why do the globalists work so unrelentingly to remove us from the picture?



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 21, 2019 11:11 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


Ok, finally something direct and to the point that I could sink my teeth into.
The U.S. government, in the hands of good people (men and women for the uninformed) can certainly do tons of good to affect the lives of every man, woman and child across the country.

We could certainly live a much better life than currently exists. So on that we agree. In regards to the harmful effects of nuke flashes, again we agree.
I would love it that no one has their trigger finger at the ready to destroy
all in this world.

And I think, from previous discussions, that's where we part company.

I am not happy that we have a thoroughly incompetent, sophomoric, egotistical
man-baby with the nuclear codes readily at his disposal. Now, before you say it, I will. Yes, all presidents (and men in general) have access to those very codes. True. Clinton and Obama, Bush and Reagan. All true.

For me, this is the first time that I feel that at any moment we could be catapulted into a nuclear war. Truly horrifying. But, I have made my peace
with God, so I say - go ahead. Fuck it! Who indeed is in control?

I certainly do not know. I dare say no one does.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
To summarize (whew!) while a centralized government such as the United States can do much good- Medicare for all, reducing carbon dioxide emissions in ways that starts and individuals can't, for example- it can do much harm, like obliterating the world in a nuclear flash.

The further away that power to control goes, the more important it becomes to ask the question: Who controls the controllers?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 21, 2019 11:24 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


Quote:

This is my main point. All of the wealthy screw the workers, and they (mostly)do it through the corporate structure, not as individuals. In that sense, they're all the same. The difference is WHOSE RULES GOVERN CORPORATE BEHAVIOR AND WHERE THEY WILL BE ADJUDICATED. I know that probably sounds kind of wonkish but please bear with me and follow my logic.

IF a corporation in the USA spews pollution over a neighborhood, or steals worker's pay, or launders money, or sells contaminated medication they are subject to American regulations and laws. In this case, various state and/or Federal agencie ... county and state environmental agencies and the EPA, departments of labor, the SEC, or the FDA can step in a cite/fine/jail bad actors. If the corporation chooses to fight the issue it will be decided in an American court referencing American laws, sometimes all the way up to the Supreme Court (which happened to the agency where I used to work.) As a retired environmental regulator, I've been in many agency hearings, cooperated with our county DA, and contributed to the rulemaking process which was all done in many consuling meeings and open hearings. so I know quite a bit about the rule=amking, rule-enorcement, and appeals process.

But what happens if the USA signs a trade deal, and the rules are written, in secret, by industry representatives? What happens if one of he provisions prohibits interference with normal and expected profits? What happens when one of the provisions mandates that disputes be settled outside of the signatory nations, but in a secret trade tribunal instead?

What if a city writes a regulation limiting carbon-intensive fuels, which blocks Canadian tar-sand products from being sold within its jurisdiction? What happens if a nation writes a plain-packaging regulation to reduce cigarette sales/improve public health? What happens if a state wants to label GMOs, or limit glyphosate in food? What happens if these regulations interfere with normal and expected corporate profits? What if a corporation sues a city, or a nation? what if these nations, states, counties and cities are bound by this trade treaty? what happens if all of this is decided in, say, Singapore where their democratically-controlled laws and regulations are struck down?
Who do they appeal to?
The UN???

That is what happens under GLOBALIST policies. Globalism (which benefits transnationals) which the DNC endorses is very much like the EU: Rules are made and regulations are written that are completely out of control of the member nations. They may be good rules, or bad rules, or sideways rules (like the mandated size and thickness of toilet seats, I kid you not) but the member states have no democratic input or appeals to any of them.

Every environmental, labor, product safety hope that you might have would be subject to these transnational regulations and there would be no appeal.

I admit that the United States has a case of "regulatory capture", but if our system of regulations and our courts were so completely ineffective, there would never have been a need to concoct these trade deals. The trade deals that the Clintons and Obama and the Bushes posed removed even the THEORETICAL prospect of democratic input.

That brings up the concept of nationalism and sovereignty generally. When a nation has no control of its borders, its currency, econmic policies, laws and regulations, and these are all placed in the hands of some non-democratic entity like trade tribunals or the UN (did YOU vote for any of those representatives?? Yeah, me neither.) what happens to democracy?

Centralization ("integration") always leads to greater and greater loss of self-determintion and agency.

I could go on about Trotskyists and Marxists and centralization, but this is where I stop for today.



I neither have the time nor the energy to answer your diatribe. But, suffice it to say, I kind of expected it. Trotskyites, sheesh! I'm glad you stopped when you did.

But, I intend to unpack the above holy mess and respond. At first glance, I saw some things that just thoroughly felt like screeching chalk against a blackboard. No matter, I will answer at some point.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 22, 2019 12:44 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I neither have the time nor the energy to answer your diatribe. But, suffice it to say, I kind of expected it. Trotskyites, sheesh! I'm glad you stopped when you did. SGG
Diatribe? "A forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something."? I wasn't attacking anything. At least, that's not what it felt like to me. I was trying to pose a problem to you, as I see it, with the hope that you would either see it too or tell me where you think I went wrong in my description. If it sounded too forceful that wasn't my intention and I apologize.

Quote:

But, I intend to unpack the above holy mess and respond. At first glance, I saw some things that just thoroughly felt like screeching chalk against a blackboard. No matter, I will answer at some point.- SGG
Great! I really want to understand your POV.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 22, 2019 6:35 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECONDRATE: If the American public has so little control, why does the deep state work so hard to lie us into war? Why do the globalists work so unrelentingly to remove us from the picture?

99% of voters do not want to know what the big picture is. What did the majority of American voters do when they learned there were no WMDs in Iraq? They reelected Bush and their Republican Congressmen. If voters want/have control, they would have fired Bush and the GOP. But the lies about WMDs were just grease to keep a few voters from squeaking loudly about not controlling anything. And the majority of American voters are okay with that.

How many voters knew about the Manhattan Project before Hiroshima? They can’t have control over what they don’t know. But once the voters knew, they still didn’t want control.

Immediately after Hiroshima, the White House started a campaign directed at voters, telling them America killed those children to protect the troops and the voters back home. Most voters didn’t care if it was true or false, but they do need reassurances that America is morally superior to all and that the voter can’t be held responsible for what was done. If the voter is not in control, the voter can’t be held responsible. That was the immediate concern but the White House also did not want to shutdown the assembly line that makes nukes and they needed some justification to spend about $6 trillion on H-bombs and rockets and subs over the next 75 years.

Most voters do not want to know that recent scholarship indicates that the Soviet seizure of Japanese-held Manchuria and the prospect of Moscow’s joining the invasion of the Home Islands played as much, if not more, of a role in Japan’s decision to surrender as did the atomic bomb attacks. Did the voters get upset when they learned that? No. They don’t want to be in control of the decision between nuking Hiroshima or firebombing it as was done to Tokyo. Life or death decisions terrify most American voters. They pass responsibility for those decision to somebody else, always. But when they do, they lose all control.
www.cnas.org/publications/commentary/terrible-but-justified-the-u-s-a-
bomb-attacks-on-hiroshima-and-nagasaki

www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/atomic-bomb-hiroshima-nag
asaki-justified-us-debate-bombs-death-toll-japan-how-many-died-nuclear
/

Did the majority of voters decide on a new assassination program against heads of state? That program needs extremely small nukes to destroy a palace or a parliament where an ayatollah or a president-for-life might be working.

Earlier this year, at a sprawling complex in the Texas Panhandle, a new type of nuclear weapon began rolling off the production line and into the United States arsenal. The ballistic missile warheads are low-yield and relatively small, and they reflect a growing push by U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration to modernize the nation’s nuclear weapons program after decades of stagnation. The voters did not vote for this.

How many votes did Vice Admiral Dave Kriete recently receive from the American people? None, but he is in control, not the voters. Kriete has played a key role in developing U.S. nuclear weapons policies. Since June 2018, he has served as deputy commander of U.S. Strategic Command, the military unit responsible for detecting and deterring nuclear, space, and cyber attacks against the United States and its allies.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/aerospace/military/a-qa-with-us-n
uclear-weapons-expert


The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 22, 2019 6:52 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


They still don't get it.

Michael Moore said it the best, right before the election. Neither party is listening to their base, but the GOP especially.


Noam has is 180 degrees wrong. Both parties have shifted towards the LEFT, not the Right, as he so laughably tries to claim. Chomsky believes that we must adopt Soviet style European central gov't to appease the gods of the " Left ".

As Trump flatly stated, and correctly, the United States will never be a socialist ( communist ) country.

We'll have a war before that happens.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 22, 2019 8:29 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
They still don't get it.

Michael Moore said it the best, right before the election. Neither party is listening to their base, but the GOP especially.


Noam has is 180 degrees wrong. Both parties have shifted towards the LEFT, not the Right, as he so laughably tries to claim. Chomsky believes that we must adopt Soviet style European central gov't to appease the gods of the " Left ".

As Trump flatly stated, and correctly, the United States will never be a socialist ( communist ) country.

We'll have a war before that happens.



Well that's hard to quantify, really. They've got us so trained to think of Right and Left as Black and White, that all nuance is lost. The fact that the Democratic Party today is two parties battling each other is largely going unnoticed and unreported because Trump gets the headlines everyday.

But a large and powerful part of the Democratic Party has become almost indistinguishable from the Bushite neo-cons. They've become the party of Virtue Signalling. Pretending to care about people while they sell out our interests to multi-national corporations, big banks and big pharma.

It's incorrect to look at this as either party shifting to the right, but a very large portion of both parties are selling out the American people to "Global" interests.

At the end of the day, everything else is just distractions from that.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 22, 2019 10:25 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


We've gone from JFK asking what we can do for the country to the Democrats openly declaring that we all belong to the government.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 22, 2019 1:51 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


A lot of people on the right have the impression that any sort of collectivism is "socialism" or "communism" but there is a branch of the left wing that is more libertarian. And certain forms of collectivism are fascism (which would be considered "right-wing") not communism. Calling all forms of collectivism "left wing" kind of obscures what we're posting about and causes confusion

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 22, 2019 2:47 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Well, at the end of the day, I still believe that I'm further left leaning than I am right on most issues. But that was relative to where the political parties sat 15 years ago, and not today.

You can find plenty of graphs and studies out there that show while there has been a slight shift to the right recently in the Republican party, the Democratic party has had major shifts to the left during the last few administrations.



The way I look at it, neither party as a whole has the interests of the American People as a priority.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 22, 2019 4:39 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Sorry, but fascism isn't ' right -wing '. Apparently repeating this lie often enough has confused some into buying that Hitler and Mussolini were ' Right wing '. They weren't.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 22, 2019 4:48 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Not sure who that was directed at, Rap. I certainly didn't say fascism was right wing.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 22, 2019 5:30 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Maybe what I should have posted was "fascism which is considered rightwing by the liberaloids here".


The reality is that nobody here has defined what they mean by "left wing" and "right wing", and this is just another example of how using imprecise/ unedfined terms causes confusion.

What makes someone "rightwing"? Is it a belief in authoritarian government? That can't be the case because there certainly are authoritarian "liberals" here (REAVERBOT comes to mind). Is it racism? Well, there are a lot of of self-identified liberals practicing "indentity politics" (a form of racism or genderism) here.

What makes someone "leftwing"? Is is a belief in big-government nanny state? Then how to account for so-called left-wingers who don't mind government selling us out to the banks and corporations?

I prefer more specific terms like globalist (versus nationalist), collectivist (versus libertarian) and worker (versus capitalist and rentier capitalist) etc because I think there's less confusion that way.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 22, 2019 9:13 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


I don't think there's really a big difference between the two parties these days.

There's a lot of pretending that there is.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 23, 2019 6:30 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I don't think there's really a big difference between the two parties these days.

There's a lot of pretending that there is.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

If you only look at the politicians: No Democrats voted for Trump's Tax cut. No Republicans voted for gun control. There are other differences, you know.

If you only look at the personality of the voters, there is all the difference in the world between the two parties.
www.businessinsider.com/psychological-differences-between-conservative
s-and-liberals-2018-2


It is also no surprise that when control of the Federal government changes sides, the government doesn't swiftly change directions, no matter how hard one side pushes the buttons that control the country. For people with a superficial understanding of government, it looks like there is no difference in parties because there is no differences in performance because the opposition party is still there, slowing everything down.

Let's run an experiment after the next election: both political parties bring loaded guns to work and start shooting their opposition. I think in the aftermath that gun control will become law, which will be a win for the Democrats. But a less extreme version of this experiment is to elect a two-thirds majority for one party or the other. Then we'd find out how fast things can change. The Confederates resigning from Congress was an example of how fast government can move once the opposition leaves Washington DC.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 23, 2019 7:14 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
If you only look at the politicians: No Democrats voted for Trump's Tax cut. No Republicans voted for gun control. There are other differences, you know.



It's all superficial. Manipulate the masses with a few key issues here and there.

Quote:

If you only look at the personality of the voters, there is all the difference in the world between the two parties.


None of this matters, other than being able to manipulate people.

Quote:

It is also no surprise that when control of the Federal government changes sides, the government doesn't swiftly change directions, no matter how hard one side pushes the buttons that control the country. For people with a superficial understanding of government, it looks like there is no difference in parties because there is no differences in performance because the opposition party is still there, slowing everything down.


Yup. The system as it was designed. Nobody to blame but the voters for our terrible leadership.

Quote:

Let's run an experiment after the next election: both political parties bring loaded guns to work and start shooting their opposition. I think in the aftermath that gun control will become law, which will be a win for the Democrats.


Assuming the Democrat politicians practice what they preach, there would be no Democrats left to make that a law after they all brought knives to a gun fight.

And again, why so violent?

Quote:

But a less extreme version of this experiment is to elect a two-thirds majority for one party or the other. Then we'd find out how fast things can change. The Confederates resigning from Congress was an example of how fast government can move once the opposition leaves Washington DC.


I can't imagine that would ever happen again, so your experiment will never even take off the ground.

If the Democrats had complete run of the show right now we'd be the United States of MexiPakistanifornia and we'd be at war with Russia without any guns.

Not sure what would happen if the Republicans ran the show, but I don't trust them anymore with that power than I do the Democrats.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 23, 2019 8:23 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

But a less extreme version of this experiment is to elect a two-thirds majority for one party or the other. Then we'd find out how fast things can change. The Confederates resigning from Congress was an example of how fast government can move once the opposition leaves Washington DC.


I can't imagine that would ever happen again, so your experiment will never even take off the ground.

If the Democrats had complete run of the show right now we'd be the United States of MexiPakistanifornia and we'd be at war with Russia without any guns.

Not sure what would happen if the Republicans ran the show, but I don't trust them anymore with that power than I do the Democrats.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

This has happened once before. Herbert Hoover did such a poor job responding to the Crash of 1929 that FDR was elected and, two years later, the Democrats finally got two thirds of the seats in the Senate. The Republicans accused FDR of making America into MexiPakistanifornia, exactly like you are doing now. The Republican opposed everything as Communism. Social Security was Communism. The New Deal was Communism. Even aid to the United Kingdom to fight Hitler was Communism.

The Bitter Origins of the Fight Over Big Government - What the battle between Herbert Hoover and FDR can teach us
www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/fdr-herbert-hoover-big-go
vernment/580456
/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 23, 2019 11:16 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

But a less extreme version of this experiment is to elect a two-thirds majority for one party or the other. Then we'd find out how fast things can change. The Confederates resigning from Congress was an example of how fast government can move once the opposition leaves Washington DC.


I can't imagine that would ever happen again, so your experiment will never even take off the ground.

If the Democrats had complete run of the show right now we'd be the United States of MexiPakistanifornia and we'd be at war with Russia without any guns.

Not sure what would happen if the Republicans ran the show, but I don't trust them anymore with that power than I do the Democrats.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

This has happened once before. Herbert Hoover did such a poor job responding to the Crash of 1929 that FDR was elected and, two years later, the Democrats finally got two thirds of the seats in the Senate. The Republicans accused FDR of making America into MexiPakistanifornia, exactly like you are doing now. The Republican opposed everything as Communism. Social Security was Communism. The New Deal was Communism. Even aid to the United Kingdom to fight Hitler was Communism.

The Bitter Origins of the Fight Over Big Government - What the battle between Herbert Hoover and FDR can teach us
www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/fdr-herbert-hoover-big-go
vernment/580456
/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly



I know it's happened before. Hence the "again" in the first sentence of my reply.

Our government is currently turning this country into MexiPakistanifornia with a Republican president and majority senate.

You'd be surprised how much a government can do without a super majority when both sides are basically the same thing behind closed doors.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 24, 2019 4:06 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I don't think there's really a big difference between the two parties these days.
There's a lot of pretending that there is.- SIX

If you only look at the politicians: No Democrats voted for Trump's Tax cut. No Republicans voted for gun control. There are other differences, you know.- SECONDRATE

Yep. But one way or another, they were ALL on board with offshoring our jobs and putting money on a conveyor to the wealthy. Just look at Clinton and Obama: Clinton pushed NAFTA, did away with Glass Steagall, killed "welfare as we know it", and signed the "Commodities Futures Trading Act" and the DMCA; and Obama shoveled trillions of dollars at the banks and refused to prosecute any of them for fraud. YIPEE!!!

Quote:

If you only look at the personality of the voters, there is all the difference in the world between the two parties. - SECONDRATE
Oh yeah, because you, REAVERBOT, TWITCHY, THUGR, GSTRING, and SGG are such balanced, objective, intellectually robust, tolerant people.... BWHAHAHAHAHA!!

Quote:

It is also no surprise that when control of the Federal government changes sides, the government doesn't swiftly change directions at all...
...in anything fundamental because HEY! They both fundamentally believe in war and shipping money to the elite! The only difference is that the Dems use the CIA and call it "R2P" while the Repubs use the military and call it "anti-terrorism"! And the Repubs use tax cuts while the Dems use monetary policy and government handouts to banks, tech and big pharma.

Oh yeah! Big difference! I see it now: Thanks for explaining it to me!
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

*****

In all seriousness, SECONDRATE, altho Clinton and Obama weren't worth spit, at least I could at one time point to Feingold and Wellstone and Kaptur and Kucinich. They were people of principle. Now we have ole crazy-eyes Pelosi who's just a giant partisan douche spouting RUSSIA!RUSSIA! nonsense, and nutbags like AOC who spouts nonsensical promises that even 1% can't be fulfilled in the real world. Not that Republicans are any better! But right now in that whole swamp I can only think of two politicians who're worth anything: Rand Paul and Tulsi Gabbard- one Dem and one Repub. Not a good record for Dems!


*****

I hope, SGG, that you take apart the post that you said you would. I'm really interested in understanding your POV.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 29, 2019 1:29 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Quote:

I hope, SGG, that you take apart the post that you said you would. I'm really interested in understanding your POV.


You ARE an odd duck Siggy. Seriously. You insult me to no end and then you can't wait to read my remarks. Actually, more correctly, you're "really interested in understanding {my} POV."

Sig, let me fill you in on something. Ever since I was in high school I was
interested in civil rights, the promise of the Constitution and how it pertains to the daily lives of the working stiff. I grew up in a low-to-middle income family. I was reading the Red Book at the age of 17. I marched against the Viet Nam war, when it was unpopular to do so, and stood in front of riot police armed to the teeth with the long batons, riot helmets and fiber glass shields. I saw the look of their faces, itching to crack our skulls open as we marched by.

I watched a young girl in my "Social Institutions" class cry her eyes out as she found out that multi-national corporations caused Latin American countries economies to collapse. She was so naive and unsuspecting, that she couldn't bare the thought that American companies actually, purposefully and actively practiced such tactics. But not me. I learned at a young age that the world
is a shitty place, and that there are shitty people looking to exploit the
poor and uninformed. Like I've said before, I probably have forgotten more shit than you'll ever learn.

And now I am going to unpack.


SGG


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 29, 2019 2:02 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Let the unpacking begin:

Quote:

This is my main point. All of the wealthy screw the workers, and they (mostly)do it through the corporate structure, not as individuals. In that sense, they're all the same. The difference is WHOSE RULES GOVERN CORPORATE BEHAVIOR AND WHERE THEY WILL BE ADJUDICATED. I know that probably sounds kind of wonkish but please bear with me and follow my logic.


I wasn't thinking "wonkish" - But here's my take: the wealthy, along with their lawyers, politicians and the like, come up with ways to keep their wealth, keep us in check (the working stiff) and keep power and control.
Who cares if it's as individuals or not. They use their power and wealth to
screw the people. For example: McConnell stonewalling Obama on the Garland
nomination, or on gun control issues, Obamacare...you get the picture.

Quote:

IF a corporation in the USA spews pollution over a neighborhood, or steals worker's pay, or launders money, or sells contaminated medication they are subject to American regulations and laws. In this case, various state and/or Federal agencie ... county and state environmental agencies and the EPA, departments of labor, the SEC, or the FDA can step in a cite/fine/jail bad actors. If the corporation chooses to fight the issue it will be decided in an American court referencing American laws, sometimes all the way up to the Supreme Court (which happened to the agency where I used to work.) As a retired environmental regulator, I've been in many agency hearings, cooperated with our county DA, and contributed to the rulemaking process which was all done in many consuling meeings and open hearings. so I know quite a bit about the rule=amking, rule-enorcement, and appeals process.


Got it. Government bureaucracy...red tape. Go on.

Quote:

But what happens if the USA signs a trade deal, and the rules are written, in secret, by industry representatives? What happens if one of he provisions prohibits interference with normal and expected profits? What happens when one of the provisions mandates that disputes be settled outside of the signatory nations, but in a secret trade tribunal instead?


That's a big what if. I read a few years back that these trade deals are written to extract money to and from countries to benefit the corporations
and make a few natives filthy rich. But mostly for the multinational to syphon
money, draining the country in question of their loot. But these secret pacts
are, to put it mildly, secret. Do you know something? I know it exists.

Quote:

What if a city writes a regulation limiting carbon-intensive fuels, which blocks Canadian tar-sand products from being sold within its jurisdiction? What happens if a nation writes a plain-packaging regulation to reduce cigarette sales/improve public health? What happens if a state wants to label GMOs, or limit glyphosate in food? What happens if these regulations interfere with normal and expected corporate profits? What if a corporation sues a city, or a nation? what if these nations, states, counties and cities are bound by this trade treaty? what happens if all of this is decided in, say, Singapore where their democratically-controlled laws and regulations are struck down?
Who do they appeal to?
The UN???



I've been called away. In the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger: I'll be back.
*************************************************************************

That is what happens under GLOBALIST policies. Globalism (which benefits transnationals) which the DNC endorses is very much like the EU: Rules are made and regulations are written that are completely out of control of the member nations. They may be good rules, or bad rules, or sideways rules (like the mandated size and thickness of toilet seats, I kid you not) but the member states have no democratic input or appeals to any of them.

Every environmental, labor, product safety hope that you might have would be subject to these transnational regulations and there would be no appeal.

I admit that the United States has a case of "regulatory capture", but if our system of regulations and our courts were so completely ineffective, there would never have been a need to concoct these trade deals. The trade deals that the Clintons and Obama and the Bushes posed removed even the THEORETICAL prospect of democratic input.

That brings up the concept of nationalism and sovereignty generally. When a nation has no control of its borders, its currency, econmic policies, laws and regulations, and these are all placed in the hands of some non-democratic entity like trade tribunals or the UN (did YOU vote for any of those representatives?? Yeah, me neither.) what happens to democracy?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 29, 2019 5:40 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I'm looking forward to the rest of your post

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 30, 2019 6:09 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Oh BTW you seem doubtful about the sovereignty-shredding provisions of the TPP and TTIP, so here is a description of that "dispute resolution" provision in the TTP, from a person (Elizabeth Warren) that you probably trust.

*****

Quote:

Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, represents Massachusetts in the Senate.

The United States is in the final stages of negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive free-trade agreement with Mexico, Canada, Japan, Singapore and seven other countries. Who will benefit from the TPP? American workers? Consumers? Small businesses? Taxpayers? Or the biggest multinational corporations in the world?

One strong hint is buried in the fine print of the closely guarded draft. The provision, an increasingly common feature of trade agreements, is called “Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” or ISDS. The name may sound mild, but don’t be fooled. Agreeing to ISDS in this enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.

ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here’s how it would work. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages.

If that seems shocking, buckle your seat belt. ISDS could lead to gigantic fines, but it wouldn’t employ independent judges. Instead, highly paid corporate lawyers would go back and forth between representing corporations one day and sitting in judgment the next. Maybe that makes sense in an arbitration between two corporations, but not in cases between corporations and governments. If you’re a lawyer looking to maintain or attract high-paying corporate clients, how likely are you to rule against those corporations when it’s your turn in the judge’s seat?

If the tilt toward giant corporations wasn’t clear enough, consider who would get to use this special court: only international investors, which are, by and large, big corporations. So if a Vietnamese company with U.S. operations wanted to challenge an increase in the U.S. minimum wage, it could use ISDS. But if an American labor union believed Vietnam was allowing Vietnamese companies to pay slave wages in violation of trade commitments, the union would have to make its case in the Vietnamese courts.

Why create these rigged, pseudo-courts at all? What’s so wrong with the U.S. judicial system? Nothing, actually. But after World War II, some investors worried about plunking down their money in developing countries, where the legal systems were not as dependable. They were concerned that a corporation might build a plant one day only to watch a dictator confiscate it the next. To encourage foreign investment in countries with weak legal systems, the United States and other nations began to include ISDS in trade agreements.

Those justifications don’t make sense anymore, if they ever did. Countries in the TPP are hardly emerging economies with weak legal systems. Australia and Japan have well-developed, well-respected legal systems, and multinational corporations navigate those systems every day, but ISDS would preempt their courts too. And to the extent there are countries that are riskier politically, market competition can solve the problem. Countries that respect property rights and the rule of law — such as the United States — should be more competitive, and if a company wants to invest in a country with a weak legal system, then it should buy political-risk insurance.

The use of ISDS is on the rise around the globe. From 1959 to 2002, there were fewer than 100 ISDS claims worldwide. But in 2012 alone, there were 58 cases. Recent cases include a French company that sued Egypt because Egypt raised its minimum wage, a Swedish company that sued Germany because Germany decided to phase out nuclear power after Japan’s Fukushima disaster, and a Dutch company that sued the Czech Republic because the Czechs didn’t bail out a bank that the company partially owned. U.S. corporations have also gotten in on the action: Philip Morris is trying to use ISDS to stop Uruguay from implementing new tobacco regulations intended to cut smoking rates.

ISDS advocates point out that, so far, this process hasn’t harmed the United States. And our negotiators, who refuse to share the text of the TPP publicly, assure us that it will include a bigger, better version of ISDS that will protect our ability to regulate in the public interest. But with the number of ISDS cases exploding and more and more multinational corporations headquartered abroad, it is only a matter of time before such a challenge does serious damage here. Replacing the U.S. legal system with a complex and unnecessary alternative — on the assumption that nothing could possibly go wrong — seems like a really bad idea

This isn’t a partisan issue. Conservatives who believe in U.S. sovereignty should be outraged that ISDS would shift power from American courts, whose authority is derived from our Constitution, to unaccountable international tribunals. Libertarians should be offended that ISDS effectively would offer a free taxpayer subsidy to countries with weak legal systems. And progressives should oppose ISDS because it would allow big multinationals to weaken labor and environmental rules.

Giving foreign corporations special rights to challenge our laws outside of our legal system would be a bad deal. If a final TPP agreement includes Investor-State Dispute Settlement, the only winners will be multinational corporations.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-la
nguage-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html




-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 6, 2019 11:23 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


A week or so has gone by since your last entry here SHINY. I'm wondering if you've made any progress on taking my post part, or if you're still very busy.

Just bumping so I don't forget about this thread.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 6, 2019 3:17 PM

REAVERFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sorry, but fascism isn't ' right -wing '. Apparently repeating this lie often enough has confused some into buying that Hitler and Mussolini were ' Right wing '. They weren't.




Please stop lying. They were as far right as it gets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 6, 2019 4:02 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


No. They weren't.

Read a book, Marcos.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Sat, September 14, 2019 23:40 - 2776 posts
President Trump: good, bad, and ugly
Sat, September 14, 2019 23:12 - 86 posts
Why Is House Not Following Impeachment Rules?
Sat, September 14, 2019 19:00 - 5 posts
Dow @ 20K. Time to jump off!
Sat, September 14, 2019 16:51 - 946 posts
Impeachment Investigation Is Underway, Judiciary Committee Says
Sat, September 14, 2019 16:48 - 91 posts
Russia's and Assad's War Crimes in Syria
Sat, September 14, 2019 15:49 - 951 posts
Brexit is official: Article 50 is invoked.
Sat, September 14, 2019 13:19 - 11 posts
Fox News' Shep Smith shuts down Sean Hannity's lies and propaganda
Sat, September 14, 2019 12:59 - 13 posts
"Russia" is OVER
Sat, September 14, 2019 12:56 - 103 posts
Where has SIG and 1kiki's outrage about anyone allying with Saudia Araba gone ?
Sat, September 14, 2019 12:49 - 36 posts
Russia wants to upend Western democracy
Sat, September 14, 2019 12:35 - 162 posts
Sentencing Thread tick tock
Sat, September 14, 2019 12:27 - 6 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL